Mr. SPEAKER in, the Chair



Oral Answers to Questions — MILITARY SERVICE

Call-up Postponement (Application Form)

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that men called for medical examination at Newport, Monmouthshire, prior to being conscripted for the R.E.M.E. were refused Form N.S. 13, and were informed by the representatives of his Department that conscripts for the R.E.M.E. were not entitled to the provisions of the National Service (Armed Forces) Act; and whether this was with his authority?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. McCorquodale): Men summoned for interview and medical examination under the Specified Classes of Persons (Registration) Order are entitled to apply immediately for postponement of their call-up in the usual way immediately after medical examination, but it is explained to them that it is not generally in their interest to do so at that time. They may not be called up until after a considerable interval, if at all, and a decision given previously against postponement could not be altered afterwards in the event of new circumstances arising. It is, therefore, in their interest to await the opportunity of putting in such an application, which will be given to them later on if it is decided to call them up. I understand that the position was explained to the men at Newport, but as they appeared to be doubtful as to their position, postponement application forms N.S.13 were given to them.

Mr. Edwards: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the form N.S.13 was refused to these men and that in one case in particular was granted only after an application by a Member of this House?

Will he see that representatives of the Department state to the men their rights under the main Act when they are before a medical board?

Mr. McCorquodale: Yes, Sir. I think the instructions concerning the explanation to be given in this case were not as clear as they might have been, and I am looking into them.

Discharged Auxiliary Air Force Personnel

Sir John Mellor: asked the Minister of Labour whether his denial to members of the Auxiliary Air Force, whose discharge and simultaneous call up for service in the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve is pending, of the right to apply for postponement certificates is based upon his interpretation of the references to medical examination in Section 6 of the National Service (Armed Forces) Act, 1939, and in Section 4 of the National Service (No. 2) Act, 1941?

Mr. McCorquodale: I am advised that members of the Auxiliary Air Force who are discharged and called up for service in the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 (2) of the National Service (No. 2) Act, 1941, do not cease to be members of the Armed Forces of the Crown and that the postponement provisions in Section 6 of the National Service (Armed Forces) Act, 1939, do not apply to members of the Armed Forces of the Crown.

Sir J. Mellor: In those circumstances will my hon. Friend explain how it is that the calling-up notices were served upon these men by the Minister of Labour as though they were civilians?

Mr. McCorquodale: As this is a matter of some legal complexity, perhaps my hon. Friend would see me and the legal representatives of my Department afterwards. It is a difficult matter to discuss across the Floor of the House.

MARINE CONVENTIONS (RATIFICATION)

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Labour what decision he has come to concerning the ratification by the British Government of the following Conventions: Placing of Seamen, 1920, Repatriation of Seamen, 1926, Officers'


Competency Certificates, 1936, Holidays with Pay (Sea), 1936, Shipowners' Liability (Sick and Injured Seamen), 1936, Sickness Insurance (Sea), 1936, Hours of Work and Manning (Sea), 1936, and Minimum Age (Sea) (Revised), 1936?

Mr. McCorquodale: My right hon. Friend hopes to present to Parliament at an early date a White Paper containing the proposals of the Government with regard to the ratification of these Conventions.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL WAR EFFORT

Discharged Workers (Re-instatement)

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the fact that certain factories in the Midlands, where decisions have been given by appeal tribunals under the Essential Work Order for the reinstatement of men, the practice continues to exist of placing them on the pay roll and not providing them with any work to do; and what steps he is taking to put an end to this practice?

Mr. MeCorquodale: On this matter generally I would refer to the reply given to the hon. Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant) on 10th June. If my hon. Friend will let me have particulars of any cases he has in mind, I will be happy to have inquiries made.

Mr. Mander: I will certainly do that, but will the hon. Gentleman give as much publicity to this matter as he can, because there are a certain number of people, including even National Service officers, who appear to be unaware of the exact position?

Mr. McCorquodale: Yes, Sir.

Mr. George Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman see in the future that if these people persist in not carrying out the provisions of the Essential Work Order, they will be jailed as well as the men?

Disabled Ex-Service Men (Rehabilitation)

Major Leighton: asked the Minister of Labour how many disabled ex-Service men he has been able to place in permanent employment since the beginning of hostilities; and what steps he is taking to implement the suggestions contained in the Tomlinson Report?

Mr. McCorquodale: I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies given to the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Scott) on 13th May and to the hon. Member for the Moss Side division of Manchester (Mr. Rostron Duckworth) on 23rd March, of which I am sending him copies.

Major Leighton: What about the second half of my Question, on the Tomlinson Report?

Mr. McCorquodale: That is dealt with in one of the answers referred to.

Major Leighton: How soon can my hon. Friend make an announcement?

Mr. McCorquodale: I could not say without notice.

EXPLOSION, GLOSSOP

Mr. Thorne: asked the Minister of Labour whether he can give any information in connection with the boiler explosion and the collapse of the boiler house at Glossop, Derbyshire, on Friday, 25th June; and when the boiler was last inspected?

Mr. McCorquodale: I understand that this was an explosion of a piece of steam receiving plant. The circumstances are being investigated by the Factory Inspectorate, and the inquest is to be held on Friday. I am not in a position to make a further statement at present.

Mr. Thorne: Will inquiries be made as to when the boiler was last examined?

Mr. McCorquodale: I am sure that will be done at the inquiry.

TEACHERS (RELIGIOUS OPINIONS)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the President of the Board of Education whether it is competent for any public educational committee, directly or indirectly, to inquire as to the religious convictions of applicants for teaching vacancies in their schools; how many complaints in respect of this have been brought to his notice; and whether the qualifications of efficiency and character will remain the only tests that will be applied to such applicants?

The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Butler): There is no statutory provision limiting the scope of questions which may be asked of a person seeking


employment in a school provided by a local education authority. As a matter of practice no religious test or inquiry into the religious opinions or practices of such a candidate is made and the question of his adherence to a religious denomination is not raised. This is established by the fact that the last complaint in this respect of which my Department has a note occurred twelve years ago. I have at present nothing further to add.

Mr. Sorensen: While appreciating that answer, may I ask the Minister whether he would consider a particular case if sent it on to him?

Mr. Butler: Certainly.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Uncompleted Houses, Sankey, Lancashire

Sir Robert Young: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that there are houses partially completed, some almost ready for habitation, on a housing estate in Sankey, Lancashire, builders A. G. Liggins; that an approximate expenditure of £5,000 would comfortably house 200 people; and whether anything can be done, financially or otherwise, to lessen the housing shortage by completing those nearly ready for use?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Ernest Brown): My information about this private scheme is that since early in 1940 every facility has been given for the supply of controlled material as required from time to time. In August, 1941, on the recommendation of my Department, a licence was issued by the Ministry of Works for the completion of 31 houses which were in an advanced stage, at a total cost of £ 5,000, but after the lapse of a year the work had made no further progress. Renewed application was made in 1942, but this was refused owing to shortage of labour and materials, I have asked my officers to make an investigation at once in order that I may consider whether it is practicable for me to take action which will ensure the completion of these houses.

Sir R. Young: Thank you.

Agricultural Workers

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Health how many of the 3,000 agricul-

tural cottages in the proposed scheme have been allocated to urban district councils situated in agricultural areas?

Mr. Brown: These cottages have nearly all been allocated to rural districts where the agricultural need is most acute, but four cottages have been allocated to the Burnham-on-Crouch urban district and four to Wenlock borough.

Major Lyons: asked the Minister of Health, where, and to what extent, any actual construction has commenced in the building of any, and how many, of the 3,000 proposed rural cottages?

Mr. Brown: The construction of 92 cottages has been commenced. With permission I will circulate a list of the areas in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Reports on progress have not yet been called for but the responsible Rural District Councils are, I know, fully seized of the urgency of the matter and I am confident will see that the work of construction is carried out with all speed.

Major Lyons: Can the right hon. Gentleman say specifically whether in those cases a list of which he is circulating work is actually in progress?

Mr. Brown: I have said the construction of 92 cottages has been commenced.

Following is the list referred to:

Aylesbury.
Barrow-on-Soar.
Cardiff.
Chailey.
Cowbridge.
Grimsby.
Guildford.
Hawarden.
Lichfield.
Melford.
Romney Marsh.
Stone.
Sunderland.
Tonbridge.
Wantage.
Wellington (Salop)

Underground Rooms

Sir Francis Fremantle: asked the Minister of Health whether he will provide against the use of basements for residential or office purposes in any new buildings?

Mr. E. Brown: In the Housing Act, 1936, and in the Public Health (London) Act, 1936, there are provisions stringently controlling the use of underground rooms


for human habitation. As at present advised, I am not sure that complete prohibition of the use of underground rooms for residential or office purposes is necessary.

Sir F. Fremantle: That is so as regards existing buildings, but with regard to new buildings it is a very serious problem with the Corporation of London. Will the right hon. Gentleman bear that in mind?

Mf. Brown:: I should have thought myself that the law of 1936 would set the standard for new buildings.

Sir F. Fremantle: Will the right hon. Gentleman refer the matter to the Advisory Committee?

Mr. Brown: I could easily put it to the Central Housing Advisory Committee.

Sir Herbert Williams: Are the basements of the new Govt. offices in George Street which were occupied in the autumn of 1929 still so occupied?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman had better put that question on the Paper.

Sir H. Williams: Surely the right hon. Gentleman knows. They are under his own building.

Mr. Brown: Certainly.

Rat-Proof Buildings

Sir F. Fremantle: asked the Minister of Health whether he will provide for new buildings to be rat-proof in their construction?

Mr. E. Brown: While I shall be happy to consider any suggestions my hon. Friend may be able to make towards this object, I am advised that no practicable method has yet been discovered of attaining that object completely.

Sir F. Fremantle: Will the right hon. Gentleman also bear this in mind in the Committees which are considering future building, inasmuch as there is very great eonomic loss from rats in warehouses?

Mr. Brown: Undoubtedly.

Building Subsidy

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Minister of Health whether private builders, in their plans for post war housing, should proceed on the assumption that they will

receive the same amount of Government subsidy which it is intended to give to local authorities?

Mr. E. Brown: No, Sir. I would remind my hon. Friend that despite the absence of subsidy large numbers of houses were built by private enterprise during the years before the war.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Why should local authorities have more favourable conditions than private enterprise?

Mr. Brown: Our experience of many years has shown that there is a field for local authority building and a field for private enterprise building.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that private enterprise never functioned after the last war until local authorities had almost ceased to build houses because of unfair competition and it was not until after the Mond Housing Act that private enterprise was placed in a position to build houses to let at low rentals. Private enterprise has always built better houses at lower cost and rentals.

Mr. Brown: Of the 4,000,000 houses built after the last war, 1,000,000 were built by local authorities and 3,000,000 by private enterprise.

Sale Prices

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that houses with vacant possession are being offered for sale at double and treble their pre-war values; and, as many persons are compelled to buy houses owing to the shortage of accommodation, what steps he proposes to take to prevent this exploitation of the housing shortage?

Mr. E. Brown: I am having this whole question examined, and I hope to be in a position to make a statement on it shortly.

Municipal Houses (Decontrol)

Mr. David Adams: asked the Minister of Health how far, in giving his consent to the sale of municipal houses since the war, he has stipulated that, for the protection of future tenants, these properties should not be decontrolled?

Mr. E. Brown: Houses built by local authorities as part of their housing operations are expressly excluded from the scope of the Rent Restrictions Acts, and


are, therefore, not controlled. If such houses are sold and subsequently let they become controlled.

Mr. Adams: Are we to understand that these houses, upon sale, become controlled?

Mr. Brown: These or any others.

Rents

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the inadequate protection afforded to tenants of houses and furnished apartments by the provisions of the existing Rent Restrictions Acts, he proposes to take any further steps to protect tenants?

Mr. E. Brown: I am at the moment reviewing the working of the existing arrangements in consultation with the associations of local authorities and hope to be in a position to make an announcement shortly.

Family Accommodation

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Health what practicable steps he proposes to take to meet the increasing need of securing adequate accommodation for families; and whether he will consider extending powers of requisitioning beyond those for persons who are required to move because of the war effort so as to cover cases of overcrowding or unhealthy accommodation?

Mr. E. Brown: I am at present considering, in consultation with the associations of local authorities, what further action can and should be taken in this matter, and I shall inform the House of the result as soon as possible.

Mr. Sorensen: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that there is an increasing number of mothers with one or two children who are being refused accommodation? What practical steps has he in mind to deal with this very grave situation?

Mr. Brown: That is the very thing we are now discussing— not only powers but machinery.

Mr. Sorensen: When may we expect a report on the matter?

Mr. Brown: As soon as ever I can, and it will be quite short.

Mr. Thorne: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it illegal for landlords to refuse to let houses where women have children?

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH

Nurses (Tuberculosis)

Mr. Messer: asked the Minister of Health whether he can give figures showing the number and percentage of nurses employed in general hospitals who contract pulmonary tuberculosis; and what relation these figures bear to those employed in tuberculosis sanatoria?

Mr. E. Brown: I regret that no such figures as my hon. Friend mentions are available. I would point out, however, that in the Report of the Medical Research Council Committee on Tuberculosis in War-Time published in October last it was stated that evidence from other countries and expert opinion in our own suggest that the risk of contracting tuberculosis from nursing tuberculosis patients in sanatoria is no greater than that involved in general hospital nursing. It may also be noted that in the Registrar-General's Decennial Supplement of 1931 regarding occupational mortality it was observed that mortality statistics provided no evidence of special occupational risk of tuberculosis infection in the nursing profession.

Mr. Messer: As this question was put directly to establish that point, is it riot possible to get statistics, because tuberculosis is notifiable, and it ought to be easy?

Mr. Brown: I do not think it is easy, out I will consider the matter.

Crane Flies

Sir John Mellor: asked the Minister of Health whether he will make a statement with regard to the crane flies which breed in the sewage filter beds of the Birmingham, Tame and Rea District Drainage Board and infest the neighbourhood of Minworth and Curdworth; and what steps he is taking to secure the abatement of this nuisance?

Mr. E. Brown: I have assured myself by inquiry that the Drainage Board have, by temporary alterations in the composition of the sewage and by treatment with salt and, more recently, gas liquor, taken the best measures available within present


knowledge, and with due regard to the preservation of the filters, to alleviate the conditions complained of. Expert research into the fauna in filter beds is in progress at Minworth under the auspices of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research.

Sir J. Mellor: While I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his active intervention and while I recognise that the Drainage Board have tried to abate this disgusting nuisance, may I ask whether the facts do not indicate that there is something radically wrong with the system?

Mr. Brown: There is a difficulty on the scientific side; "Daddy long legs" are causing us a lot of trouble.

Sir J. Mellor: Will my right hon. Friend appoint a committee of inquiry to investigate this nuisance?

Mr. Brown: I have already said I will keep a special eye on the case, to which I am grateful to my hon. Friend for calling attention.

Diploma Examinations

Sir F. Fremantle: asked the Lord President of the Council whether steps are being taken to reconsider the courses and examination for the diploma in public health, in accordance with modern requirements, for which the present regulations are insufficient and out of date?

The Lord President of the Council (Sir John Anderson): The present resolutions and rules of the General Medical Council for diplomas in public health came into force in October, 1938. In 1938–9 a visitation of examinations for such diplomas was made by the Council. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the general report of the public health committee of the council on the visitation, which was published in May, 1940. While this criticises the examinations in detail, it does not appear to support the suggestion that the resolutions and rules are insufficient and out of date. In any event war conditions would make any general revision of the curriculum for such diplomas inopportune.

Sir F. Fremantle: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that Assumption B in the Beveridge Report rests very largely , upon medical officers of health, who are

one of the linch pins, and that the very large number of suggestions that are proposed for the realisation of Assumption B provide that in the future the qualification "D.P.H." will be considered essential?

Sir J. Anderson: That point will be kept in view.

OLD AGE PENSIONS

Sir Reginald flurry: asked the Minister of Health whether the payment of old age pensions is automatically stopped on the applicant appealing for aid to the Public Assistance Board; what other circumstances entail a similar stoppage of pension; and whether the payment is maintained to the applicant or the institution when the pensioner enters a mental home or similar institution?

Mr. E. Brown: The answer to the first part of the Question is "No, Sir," but an old age pension is not payable during the maintenance of a pensioner in a Poor Law institution, unless he has become an inmate for the purpose of receiving medical treatment, in which case there is no automatic disqualification so long as treatment is required. As regards the second part of the Question, an old age pension is not payable during imprisonment without the option of a fine, or during maintenance as a criminal lunatic. As regards the third part, a non-contributory old age pension is not payable to or in respect of a person who is being maintained as a rate-aided person of unsound mind or is being detained in a mental hospital; this disqualification does not operate where the pension is a contributory one.

BILLETING ORDER

Sir Harold Webbe: asked the Minister (of Health whether, having regard to the billeting powers now exercised by local authorities, he will consider a modification of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Billeting Order (S.R. & O., No. 986 of 1939), so as to provide that the tribunals of appeal should be independent of the authorities against whose action an appeal is made?

Mr. E. Brown: Although the members of the billeting tribunals were originally appointed by the mayor or chairman of


the local authority for the area, they are not in any way dependent on the local authority in carrying out the duties assigned to them. I am in no doubt that in general these difficult duties have been carried out very well, and I do not think that any alteration is called for.

Sir H. Webbe: Would it not be practicable for local magistrates to nominate independent persons so that there shall be no question whatever of local authorities appointing judges in their own case?

Mr. Brown: If my hon. Friend is in any difficulty, I would like to discuss it with him, but in general that would not be my view.

RATING ASSESSMENT

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Health, whether he is aware that in certain districts the provisions of the Rating and Valuation (Postponement of Valuations) Act, 1940, are being nullified by proposals to amend assessments in selected parishes of certain classes of property; and whether he will circularise county valuation committees pointing out to them the undesirability of initiating such a piecemeal revision of assessments at the present stage of the war?

Mr. E. Brown: The Act of 194o, to which my hon. Friend refers, left it open to ratepayers on the one hand and to rating authorities and county valuation committees on the other to make proposals for altering existing assessments. As at present advised I do not think I should be justified in suggesting that rating authorities and county valuation committees should forgo their statutory right of taking steps to secure the alteration of assessments which they believe to be incorrect.

Mr. Turton: Does my right hon Friend appreciate that the work of revision of assessments is handicapping the war effort, and not only those who have to appear before Committees to give evidence but also those who sit on the Assessment Commission?

Mr. Brown: I will inquire of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture to see whether he has any information on that point.

APPROVED SOCIETY (CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR'S EXPULSION)

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that Mr. Arthur William Pettet, 26, Marlborough Road, South Chingford, London, E.4, has been expelled from the National Deposit Friendly Approved Society because he served six months' imprisonment as a conscientious objector to military service; that an ,appeal against the decision of the society was upheld by the Referee, Mr. Kennett Macmorran; whether in view of the fact that Pettet has already suffered for his offence, he will take steps to wipe out this additional penalty by restoring the man to membership of his approved society, and how many approved societies, giving their titles, have adopted this punitive policy?

Mr. E. Brown: I am aware of this case, but I would point out that under Section 163 (4) of the National Health Insurance Act, 1936, the Referee's decision is final and conclusive. With the exception of a similar one in the same society, no other case of the kind has come to my notice.

Mr. Davies: Does the right hon. Gentleman think really it is fair that a man having already atoned for an offence and served six months' imprisonment should be penalised further by being expelled from his approved society? Cannot he take some action to prevent this persecution?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman asks my opinion on the matter. That is not in the Question. The position is that the competent authority under the law has made a decision, and it is final.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Cannot something be done in this case? Further, when the Beveridge proposals are initiated will he be able to take further steps to deal with the matter?

Mr. Davies: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

REQUISITIONED PROPERTY, MERIONETHSHIRE

Major Sir Edward Cadogan: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that a certain property, of which he has been informed, was represented to have


been requisitioned for an isolation hospital by the county authority on Government instruction when in reality the property was taken from the owner by the county authority without Government sanction or any apparent knowledge of the matter, the property being entirely used for the county authority's own purpose; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. E. Brown: I have been in correspondence with my hon. and gallant Friend on the case to which he is referring and have already offered the services of the Ministry to assist in negotiating an agreement between the owner of the property and the local authority concerned. To this offer I have received no reply at the moment from the owner of the property.

Sir E. Cadogan: Did the Department come in as soon as the local authority requisitioned the premises?

Mr. Brown: I think there is a misunderstanding. The house was originally requisitioned by the rural district council for an isolation hospital. That was in order. Later it was not found necessary and it was then de-requisitioned. The Merioneth County Council then wanted it for their own purposes of which we approved. The County Council, as I understand it, applied to the owner for ordinary free tenancy agreement, but he thought the 'house was re-requisitioned; that is not so. What is wanted now is an agreement. I will do my best to help the matter through.

ARMED FORCES AND CIVILIANS (PENSIONS AND GRANTS)

Mr. Summers: asked the Minister of Pensions on what grounds he has refused a pension to the widow of a soldier, whose name has been given to him, who died in the Middle East suffering from head injuries, and whose death was stated to be in the service of his country?

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womeirsley): As the injuries sustained by the soldier in question were the result of a traffic accident which occurred whilst he was not on duty, I regret that under present arrangements I cannot award his widow a pension. As, however, the hon.

Member will be aware, I am shortly to make a statement to the House on pension matters generally, including accidents to members of the Forces while they are not on duty, but he will appreciate that I cannot anticipate any decision which may be reached on this question.

Mr. Summers: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the information he has just been good enough to provide is considerably more informative than that sent to the next of kin? Will he consult with his colleagues with a view to adopting a form of notification of death to be sent to the next of kin so as to convey as much information as possible?

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that voluntary subscriptions by colliers and other workers for their comrades serving with the Armed Forces are taken into assessment when considering war service grants; and whether instructions can be issued to ignore such items of household income?

Sir W. Womersley: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Central Bristol (Lady Apsley) on 23rd June last, of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. Bellenger: As that reply, which I have not seen, was probably unsatisfactory, may I ask whether these contributions by workmates to their colleagues in the Services are not in the nature of a voluntary whip round and whether he will not totally ignore such contributions?

Sir W. Womersley: My Department has to make up the deficiency in the income of the household. That is our duty and we must take into consideration what the income is. If it is just an occasional gift of money or kind we should, not take it into consideration, but if it is a regular income it must be taken into consideration.

Mr. Bellenger: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that what he is doing is to throw some of his responsibility on to the voluntary efforts of these workers?

Sir W. Womersley: I do not agree.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the effect of the decision is that where these men previously contributed they are now ceasing to do so?

Sir W. Womersley: We make up the deficiency anyhow.

Major Lyons: Is the Department really bound to treat as income voluntary and friendly gifts of this nature? Is it not all very mean?

Sir W. Womersley: There is a good deal more in it than that.

Mr. Sorensen: Does it not also impinge on the whole question of Easter offerings?

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he can give an estimate of how much money would have been involved over and above the payments already made for pensions and dependants allowances had all claims been met since the beginning of the present war?

Sir W. Womersley: I regret that the records of my Department do not enable me to furnish the hon. Member with the information desired.

Captain Gammans: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is prepared to reconsider his decision that the death of Mr. L. E. Sunderland, of 17, Church Crescent, Muswell Hill, N.10, a Civil Defence worker, was not due to the injury which he received on duty, in view of the verdict of the coroner for the county of Middlesex that death was accelerated by a fracture of the spine sustained by a fall from an upper bunk at an air-raid precautions post; and whether coroners' verdicts are considered in deciding the eligibility for a pension?

Sir W. Womersley: As I have already informed the hon. and gallant Member, the case of Mr. Sunderland has been thoroughly investigated. All the evidence, including the report of the coroner's inquest, has been considered by my principal medical advisers who, however, are unable to certify that Mr. Sunderland's death at the age of 68 from a prostatic affection, common amongst elderly men, was accelerated by the injury which he sustained some three months before, and after which he was able to continue at duty.

Captain Gammans: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate the strength of feeling that must be aroused among Civil Defence workers when his Department overrides the verdict of a coroner's inquest after it

has heard expert medical evidence, and is he prepared to reconsider the case?

Sir W. Womersley: We have to take all medical evidence into account, including the findings of the coroner's inquest, and in a case like this, where there can be no possible connection between the disease from which the man died and any injuries he received, we are bound to find against a claim.

Captain Gammans: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Captain Gammans: asked the Minister of Pensions on what grounds the denial of the right of a pension to the unmarried dependant of a member of the Civil Defence services, who may have been killed or may die as a result of Civil Defence duties, is justified, as such a dependant of a member of the fighting forces is eligible under certain circumstances for a pension; and whether he is prepared to promote the necessary legislation to remove this anomaly?

Sir W. Womersley: This is a matter which is included in the general review of the provisions of the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme which I have undertaken and which is still under consideration.

Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he proposes to continue the discrimination between accidental death occurring on 48 hours' leave and seven days leave, respectively, when deciding whether a widow's pension is admissible?

Sir W. Womersley: This is one of the matters upon which I hope to make an announcement at an early date.

Sir T. Moore: Will my right hon. friend bear in mind that there is no sense or logic in making this discrimination?

Mr. Bowles: The right hon. Gentleman has made three or four references to the statement he is going to make in the near future. Is that intended to initiate a Debate, or is it merely to explain the provisions of a new Royal Warrant?

Sir W. Womersley: I understand that arrangements are being made through the usual channels to have a full Debate on my statement.

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Pensions approximately the additional annual cost that would be involved at the present time if rue onus of proof as regards eligibility for pension in the case of ex-Service personnel, enlisted as Grade I was shifted on to the State and the assumption adopted that such a person was entitled unless the contrary is proved?

Sir W. Womersley: I regret that I am not in a position to give the information asked for by the hon. Member.

Mr. Mander: Can my right hon. friend at any rate say whether the amount would be substantial?

Sir W. Womersley: I cannot give any information at all.

Mr. E. P. Smith: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will give an assurance that the absence of any Service medical tests or any recorded medical history will not prejudice the interests of any Home Guard who may have occasion to apply for a disability pension?

Sir W. Womersley: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Pensions whether copies of A.F.B.117 and of proceedings of courts of inquiry into accidents or diseases suffered by members of the military forces are made available to claimants for war pensions on the ground of such accidents or diseases?

Sir W. Womersley: If a member of the Forces is discharged on medical grounds his case, with all the relevant documents, is referred automatically to my Department for consideration and no formal claim has to be submitted by the individual concerned. When the Pensions Appeal Tribunal Bill now before the House becomes law a dissatisfied ex-member of the Forces will have the right of appeal to an independent Tribunal and, if he exercises this right, he will be supplied with a statement of the facts relating to his case. The form of the statement and what documents should go with it is a matter for consideration and may be dealt with by the Rules to be made by the Lord Chancellor under the Bill now before the House.

Mr. Turton: As these documents contain the history of the accident that

occurred in the Service, will my right hon. Friend see that claimants receive copies of them?

Sir W. Womersley: I notice that the hon. Member has an Amendment to the Bill, and perhaps he will await the discussion on it.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA

Inflation

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: asked the Secretary of State for India the latest estimate of the rise in the cost of living in India since 1939, and whether he can give an assurance that further inflation will be prevented or rigidly controlled?

The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): No cost-of-living index numbers are available for India as a whole. The working-class cost-of-living index for Bombay City, which is the most reliable guide, showed a figure of 225 for the month of April last, as compared with 105 for August, 1939. The Government of India have put into effect a considerable number of measures designed to combat the danger of inflation, and will not hesitate to take such further steps as may be required.

Mr. Sorensen: Is it not true that wages in this area have risen far less than the cost of living?

Mr. Amery: Wages have, I think, risen by some 75 per cent., and there are also cost-of-living allowances in addition.

Mr. Lipson: Why have the Government of India been less successful in preventing inflation in India than the Government of this country?

Mr. Amery: India is a very different country from this.

Education

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for India whether he will recommend to the Government of India to take immediate steps, in concert with the Provincial Governments and, if possible, with the Indian States, to review the position of education in India with a view to providing edudation facilities for all Indian children within in years of the cessation of hostilities, and to effect a drastic reduction of adult illiteracy?

Mr. Amery: The hon. Member can rest assured that his desire for educational progress in India is fully shared by the Indian Governments and Legislatures in whom the responsibility in this field is vested.

Mr. Sorensen: While that is no doubt true, may I ask whether we could have some evidence of a constructive plan to deal with this urgent question over the next few years?

Mr. Amery: I believe that all the Governments concerned are actively intersted in promoting education in so far as circumstances allow.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is it not a fact that educational progress in India has been hampered by the disbandment some 16 years ago of the Indian educational service, and will my right hon. Friend seriously consider setting up again some all-Indian educational service?

Mr. Amery: The matter is primarily confined to the Provinces under the Government of India Act.

Mr. Sorensen: Is it not true that the fact remains that after many years of British opportunity only 15 per cent. of the population are literate?

Commander Locker-Lampson: And will my right hon. Friend educate Gandhi?

Mr. Molson: Is it not the case that education has been a transferred subject since 1920?

Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir.

House of Commons Official Report

Commander King-Hall: asked the Secretary of State for India whether copies of Hansard are supplied to the Viceroy and to Governors of States in India?

Mr. Amery: Hansard is supplied regularly to the Viceroy by the India Office. Provincial Governments obtain their requirements through the High Commissioner for India.

Food Situation

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has any further statement to make as to the food shortage in India, its cause and the measures taken to improve the position; to what extent grain is still

being hoarded by middlemen; whether searches were carried out and punishment inflicted in cases detected; and whether prices are controlled and how these corn-pare with the prices in the same months in 1939?

Mr. Amery: The basic facts have not changed. There is no overall shortage of food grains while India has harvested a bumper crop of wheat this spring. There is, however, grave maldistribution for which responsibility is shared by all parties from the cultivator upwards. The plans elaborated by the Food Department of the Government of India earlier in the year have been less successful than was hoped and the Government of India are now considering, in consultation with the Provinces and States, what measures it is best to take, both short term and long. Pending their conclusions it would be inopportune to make any further general statement. As part of the comprehensive measures which are required, severe steps have been taken against middlemen in parts of India and may have to be taken elsewhere. As regards prices, wheat is about 3⅓ and rice in Calcutta something like 9½ times that of September, 1939. This last figure is not applicable to other parts of India, in some of which the prices are very much lower. These prices are not controlled.

Corporal Punishment

Mr. Silverman: asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that reports of whipping for offences arising out of or in connection with political disturbances show that in three districts of Sindh alone 800 such penalties have been inflicted during the past three months; and whether he will publish the full records of penalties of whipping inflicted in British India during the past year?

Mr. Amery: I have no information about canings in Sind in the past three months. If the hon. Member will communicate to me the source of his information, I will make inquiries. Collected statistics for British India are not available and I would not feel justified in asking that Provincial Governments should undertake in present circumstances to supply them.

Mr. Silverman: In view of the fact that my right hon. Friend stated in March last that the figures for these sentences in all


India were 958, are we to assume from the figures he has now given that sentences of this kind have vastly increased during the last few months?

Mr. Amery: No, Sir. Those were figures in connection with an outbreak of murderous violence last autumn. I am glad to say that that outbreak has ceased, and I have no reason to suppose that there have been numerous sentences of that kind in India as a whole. The Question of the hon. Member referred to Sind, where there was martial law owing to another outbreak. Martial law has been suspended since 1st June. I have no further figures in regard to Sind.

Earl Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend be good enough to make the constitutional position clear in this matter? Surely under the Government of India Act he is not responsible for law and order, except where there is military control. Has there been any alteration in the practice of his predecessors, who said that these were matters for the Provincial Governments?

Mr. Amery: I am much obliged to my noble Friend for his question. The original Question referred to Sind, which in these matters is self-governing. Martial law was however imposed in Sind and to that extent I felt justified in dealing with the question.

Mr. Silverman: Is it the view of the right hon. Gentleman that if sentences of this kind increased enormously all over India, that would be a matter in which the India Office would have no interest at all?

Mr. Amery: Constitutionally, this is a matter left in the hands of the self-governing Provinces and no longer one for question and answer in this House.

Earl Winterton: I am sorry to have to raise the same matter again, but I think I shall have to make it a point of Order. It has been the practice for years in this House to say that it is not in Order to answer Questions which come within the complete purview of the Provincial Governments. Will my right hon. Friend say whether that is the position to-day? It was not clear from his answer.

Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir, that is entirely the general position, with regard to Provinces enjoying self-government; but, in

so far as matters have been affected by special causes like martial law, or by Rules under the Defence of India Act, or like the disturbances last autumn, I felt that I could not very well refuse to answer.

Mr. Dobbie: asked the Secretary of State for India how many protests from Indian persons or organisations the Governor-General of India has received in regard to the whipping of Indians arrested in connection with political agitation?

Mr. Amery: I have no information.

Mr. Dobbie: Have any steps been taken to bring to an end this abominable practice?

Mr. Amery: I have answered this Question very fully on previous occasions.

Mr. Riley: asked the Secretary of State for India how many young people under 21 years of age have been punished by whipping during the past 12 months; how many of these were under 16 years; and how many girls and young women are in prison, or under detention, for political offences?

Mr. Amery: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) on 20th May.

Mr. Sorensen: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that that reply was no reply, as it gave no information at all?

Mr. Amery: That depends upon the character of the reply.

Mr. Riley: Are these cases reviewed from time to time as to the numbers who are imprisoned and who have been subjected to this treatment?

Mr. Amery: I am afraid I did not catch the hon. Member's question.

Mr. Riley: I asked whether cases were reviewed from time to time or whether there is no review whatever.

Mr. Amery: As I have already pointed out, there is no occasion for me to inaugurate reviews of matters which are within the competence of Provincial Governments.

Mr. Sorensen: Has not the right hon. Gentleman a moral responsibility to stop these whippings?

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN ECONOMIC SERVITUDE

Inter-Allied Committee's Investigation

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Prime Minister (1) whether any consultations have taken Place between the United Nations on the question of the German financial and industrial penetration of Europe; has his attention been directed to the survey of Europe by the United States Office of War Information; and can a statement be made on the matter;
(2) whether he is aware of the German financial penetration of all German dominated countries and other Fascist satellite countries by the ramifications of the Hermann Goering Trust which now controls the European heavy industries; and, in view of this development, will he give an assurance that unconditional surrender means that all the German finance and industrial interests shall be annulled and restored to the national states or a United Nations economic arrangement?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): His Majesty's Government are well aware of the penetration of European industry and finance by Nazi Germany, and in particular by the Hermann Goering Trust. His Majesty's Government jointed with the other Allied Governments chiefly concerned in making a Declaration on 5th January of this year which emphasized their intention to defeat all methods of dispossession practised by the enemy Powers in territories under their occupation or control. As a result of this Declaration, the text of which is contained in Command Paper 6418, an Inter-Allied Committee of Experts was set up in London to prepare the way for further action by a study of the relevant law and by the collection of the necessary information on what the enemy has done and is still doing. The Governments of the United States of America, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, China, and the Governments of the European Allies are all represented on this Committee, which is assembling much valuable material. This information, together with information from other sources, including, of course, relevant reports published by the United States Office of War Information, will naturally be taken into full account in framing the future plans of the United Nations.
I cannot at present forecast these plans in detail nor the arrangements which will follow the unconditional surrender of the enemy, but my hon. Friend can be assured that one of the aims of His Majesty's Government and the Governments of the United Nations will be to ensure that Europe will be totally purged from the economic servitude which Nazi Germany has forced upon her.

NORTH AFRICA (FRENCH MILITARY AND POLITICAL ORGANISATION)

Sir T. Moore: asked the Prime Minister whether he is now prepared to make a statement on the position of the French National Committee in North Africa?

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the decision to invest full control in General Eisenhower over the French political organisation in North Africa; and whether His Majesty's Government are parties to this decision?

The Prime Minister: I assume that the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) has in mind recent Press messages from Washington 6n this subject. The facts are these. In view of the prolonged discussions between the French leaders in Algiers on questions involving the character and control of the French Armed Forces, and the serious effect which this might have on the furtherance of the war effort and the safety of the Allied Armies in North Africa, the Allied Commander in-Chief, with the authority of the United States Government and His Majesty's Government, on 19th June asked General Giraud and General de Gaulle for an assurance that there should be no important change in the French command in North Africa at the preset time and that General Eisenhower should be satisfied that the French military organisation was such that the French Commander-in-Chief had effective and proper control of the French Forces in this area. This representation was made on military grounds and implied no decision to invest General Eisenhower with full control over the political organisation in North Africa.
I would take this opportunity to deprecate giving any undue attention to the personality aspect of the new French organisation. I informed the House on 8th June that we all rejoiced when agree-


ment was made and the French Committee of National Liberation was set up and constituted as the single and sole authority for all Frenchmen seeking to free France from the German yoke, and I added that our dealings, financial and otherwise, would henceforward be with this Committee as a whole. The Committee is working on the basis of collective responsibility, and it is our hope that all its members will merge their personal and individual interests for the common good of France. His Majesty's Government have consistently encouraged the union of all Frenchmen in the fight against the Axis and for the liberation of France. It has never been their policy to take sides between Frenchmen who fall in this category, and it is not their policy to support any one member of the Committee of National Liberation rather than another.
Taking a longer view, I would say that it is not the policy of the United States and British Governments that their Armies, upon whom the main burden must rest, or French Forces equipped by them, shall be used to impose upon France, directly or indirectly, any particular military leader, but rather to make sure that the broad and settled will of the masses of the French people, expressed under conditions of freedom, shall decide upon the future Government of their country.

Mr. Shinwell: While fully appreciating the difficulties in French North Africa and the need for maintaining the supremacy of the military authorities in the existing situation, will my right hon. Friend care to comment on the suspicions which appear to have been generated arising out of the, Washington messages affecting the position of General de Gaulle? Can we be assured that no steps are being taken with the concurrence of His Majesty's Government to undermine the position of General de Gaulle?

The Prime Minister: I think my answer covers very clearly the last part of the question, and I should be very shy of commenting on suspicions about statements or reports issued by other Governments than our own.

Sir T. Moore: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that unity and co-operation will now develop under this new system?

The Prime Minister: I think that would be to convict myself of undue optimism.

Mr. Shinwell: Can we be assured—I do not put it higher than that and I ask it with deference—that His Majesty's Government are always consulted on the position in North Africa, particularly with regard to the political implications, and that nothing is done without their consent?

The Prime Minister: No, I should not put it as high as that, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Stockton (Mr. Harold Macmillan) has the fullest confidence of General Eisenhower. He lives in the closest association with the United States authorities and with the French authorities of every hue, he sees them continually, and very often reports to us several times a day. Of course, the main direction of the campaign in North Africa is, as I explained to the House earlier in the year, under the United States authorities, but we are also in frequent communication with the American Government, and personally I am in the closest accord with the President upon all the steps that are taken.

Sir Alfred Beit: Is it not very difficult for the Allied Command to distinguish between the political and military aspects of French conversations?

The Prime Minister: That, no doubt, is one of those difficulties which tax to the utmost the ability of the distinguished officers involved.

Mr. Bellenger: Is the House to understand from the Prime Minister's statement that in order to ensure the safety of the Allied troops and their communications it is necessary that General Giraud shall remain in supreme command of the French Military Forces?

The Prime Minister: I certainly consider that that is necessary at the present time.

Mr. Bowles: May I ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to an article in the "Daily Herald" this morning, which Geoffrey Parsons cabled to the "New York Herald-Tribune," headed "Blue print for civil war," and whether he agrees with that as being true or not?

The Prime Minister: I was so much occupied this morning in reading the very agreeable leading article in the "Daily Herald" that that escaped my attention.

POST-WAR INDUSTRY (CONTROL)

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Prime Minister whether the Government have yet taken any decision as to who will control industry after the war; and what major industries are scheduled for State enterprise and free enterprise, respectively?

The Prime Minister: I should not dream of embarking on such political and party controversies at the present time.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of his colleagues has ventured into this area of controversy and that it is causing a great deal of dissatisfaction?

The Prime Minister: All the more desirable is it that I should not swell the chorus.

TRADES DISPUTES ACT

Commander King-Hall: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the contribution made to the national war effort by the trades unions in voluntarily suspending the operation of rules likely to hamper the war effort, he will consider the advisability of amending the Trades Disputes Act which, in its present form, is superfluous?

The Prime Minister: This matter raises many controversial issues, and I am not in a position at present to make any statement.

Commander King-Hall: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in view of the very high regard in which he is held by Members of all parties he is particularly well fitted to deal with this matter, and will he give it his personal attention?

The Prime Minister: I can assure my hon. Friend that I give it my constant personal attention, and the last thing in the world I want to see is quarrels breaking out between people who are working so very solidly together in the common line of defence.

Mr. Mander: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the possibility of at any rate repealing Section 5?

SECOND CHAMBER

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the Prime Minister whether the Government contemplate legislation to establish a Second Chamber in our Parliamentary system more in keeping with the spirit of the times?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I stand upon the Parliament Act, including its Preamble, but I have no legislative aspirations in this sphere at the present time.

DISCHARGED SERVICE PERSONNEL (MEDICAL TREATMENT)

Miss Ward: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the differences which exist between medical treatment provided for men in the Regular Services and men called up under the National Service Act and the fact that, after 20 years' service, it is possible for men to be discharged without notice with a serious illness to face, he will move to appoint a Select Committee to examine the points on which differences of treatment exist in order to equalise them?

The Prime Minister: Having made various inquiries, I am not aware of any differentiation between Regular and other personnel in this matter. The arrangements for continuity of treatment on discharge are applicable to all members of the Forces, and no useful purpose would be served by setting up a Select Committee. If my hon. Friend has an individual case in mind, I shall be glad to arrange for special inquiries to be made.

Miss Ward: If I ventured to send my right hon. Friend a general statement of the position, would he very kindly look into it?

The Prime Minister: Certainly, Sir. If the statements I have made here about uniformity of treatment are wrong, I shall be very glad to have information that will upset them, but I am rather doubtful whether that will be forthcoming.

Miss Ward: Will my right Friend be kind enough to inquire into the question of the immediate discharge of invalids?

The Prime Minister: That is another topic.

Mr. Thorne: As this is the last Question to you to-day, Mr. Prime Minister, may I congratulate you here, upon your splendid speech last night?

The Prime Minister: I am very grateful for that expression, coming from the hon. Member.

CROWN LANDS

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Minister of Agriculture the capital value of all Crown lands, including ground rents and the total net income after Income Tax; and, if these same lands and ground rents were owned by an individual, what would be the annual amount of Surtax payable?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): No valuation of all the Crown lands having been made, the figures are not available to enable the first part of the Question to be answered, and with regard to the last part of the Question, the Crown is not assessed to Schedule "A" tax, and no computation can therefore be made of Income Tax and Surtax.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Horticulture (Research and Development)

Mr. Butcher: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the contribution made to the employment of labour by horticulture, and the nutritional value of much horticultural produce, he is arranging for increased research and development in this branch of agriculture?

Mr. Hudson: Increased provision has been made since the war for national research on specifically horticultural problems, and I am sending my hon. Friend particulars.

Binders and Combine Harvesters

Mr. Butcher: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is satisfied that a sufficient supply of binders and combine harvesters will be available for this year's harvest?

Mr. Hudson: There will be a considerable increase in the number of binders and combine harvesters available to deal with the additional acreage to be harvested this year, and I believe that we shall have enough.

Mr. Butcher: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that a binder on a farm is worth more than one in the country?

Mr. Hudson: It is also worth more than on the other side of the Atlantic.

County War Agricultural Executive Committees

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the importance of the work which has been carried out by the county war agricultural executive committees, he will make some general statement of what has been accomplished; and what are the Government's intentions regarding the operation of their future policy?

Mr. Hudson: On reflection my hon. Friend will, I think, realise that it is impossible to deal with the matters referred to by way of Question and answer. There may perhaps be an opportunity in the near future for these matters to be raised in Debate.

Mr. De la Bère: May I assure my right hon. Friend that I am not attempting to belittle the good work done by the committees but am pointing out that what is required is some machinery so that, in cases where a decision has been unfortunate, there will be a right of appeal? We do not want to perpetuate the committees after the war in their existing form.

Wages

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, arising out of the recent awards by the Central Agricultural Wages Board, he will make a statement to show in what way the Government propose to reimburse the farming industry for the additional expense which the awards will entail?

Mr. Hudson: No, Sir, I have no statement to make at the present time.

Mr. De la Bère: Surely there is a possibility of good will and good understanding in this matter. Is it not possible to reach an understanding? If factory workers can get £8 or £io a week, why cannot farm workers get £4 a week? The present' position does not seem to be right. Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind also that, if the increase is granted, farmers may have to pay out anything up to £ 4,000,000, and will he see whether some adjustment can be made?

Glasshouse Growers (Restrictions)

Mr. E. P. Smith: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that Scottish glasshouse growers have had no restrictions placed upon what they may grow whereas similar English growers have been severely restricted, with serious consequential loss; and what is the reason for this differentiation?

Mr. Hudson: In the interests of food production the growing of flowers and other non-essential crops in commercial glasshouses has been restricted in Scotland as well as in England and Wales. Having regard to the differences in conditions as between the two countries, the divergencies in the respective Orders are not greater than would be expected.

Mr. Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the divergencies in question are rather resented South of the Border?

Mr. Hudson: I do not think they have any justification for doing so.

Mr. Maxton: Is the Minister aware also that they are very strongly resented on the other side of the Border?

Artificial Insemination

Mr. Price: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will increase the number of stations where cattle-breeders can get facilities for the artificial insemination of their stock from approved sires beyond the two at present existing?

Mr. Hudson: No, Sir. Not until the results from the existing experimental centres are available.

Mr. Price: Are the existing stations being well used?

Mr. Hudson: They are experimental.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE

Northern Ireland (Travel Permits)

Dr. Little: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider the granting of travel permits to civil servants and other persons from Northern Ireland, who have not been permitted to visit their homes and relations for two or more years, in order to enable them to travel to Ulster to visit their friends?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): It

is necessary to limit travel between this country and Ireland, and it has not been found possible to allow home visits to Ireland by persons resident in Great Britain except for the purpose of visiting parents, children, husbands or wives. Any wider definition of "home" would make so many persons eligible for travel that control could not be maintained.

Dr. Little: If, as I have been informed, it is now possible for a worker, on presentation of a statement from his employer that he is going on leave, to obtain a travel permit, will the right hon. Gentleman institute the same procedure for those in the Civil Service and other Government employment? It would be only just and right.

Mr. Morrison: I am afraid I cannot give that undertaking.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir William Allen: With regard to these permits; sometimes they are granted almost on the date on which the boat sails, Although permits have been asked for weeks previously, it is not until the lust minute that they are granted. Would the right hon. Gentleman try to speed that up?

Mr. Morrison: I think the hon. and gallant Member had better give me particulars of those cases, but he may find that the people were late in making the application.

Part-time Service, Wigan

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that Mr. Robert H. Westwell, 110, Scot Lane, Aspull, Wigan, has been ordered to perform Civil Defence duties and that his appeal against that has been dismissed; that he is employed at an engineering works for 6o hours per week, three miles away from his residence; that he must ordinarily leave home for his employment at 6 a.m., returning again about 7.30 p.m.; that his wife works full time at the same factory; and whether he can release this man from Civil Defence duties?

Mr. H. Morrison: This man was directed to part-time service in the National Fire Service. His appeal was disallowed but he has not yet been called upon to do duty. I am informed that the station to which he was directed is near his home. In accordance with the usual practice full account will be taken of his personal circumstances in determining the amount of


duty required of him; but I could not agree that he should be entirely relieved of the obligation to perform any part-time service.

Mr. Davies: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think he is almost asking the impossible of this man? How can he be expected to do his work efficiently in an engineering ship for 6o hours if he is also called upon to do Civil Defence duties? Really the situation is physically impossible.

Mr. Morrison: The basis of part-time service is now pretty well universal. We have to have part-timers, especially in releasing full-timers, and I am advised that there are many cases of this kind where the work is being cheerfully done.

Bathing Facilities, South Coast

Sir H. Williams: asked the Home Secretary whether he is prepared to authorise, in cases where the military authorities have no objection, access to portions of the beach on the South Coast to make bathing possible?

Mr. H. Morrison: Access to beaches for bathing purposes has already been permitted in certain places by agreement between the Regional Commissioner and the Military Command and in any case in which there was evidence of a real public demand for access to a particular beach, the Regional Commissioner would be prepared to consider the matter in consultation with the Command I understand that no such evidence has been produced in respect of the particular place which my hon. Friend has in mind.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braith- Waite: Does consultation take place between the Ministry of War Transport and the Ministry of Food before these decisions are made? Is my right hon. Friend aware that at one South-East coast town where the beach has been opened the trams have since been crowded to the exclusion of Service personnel and a serious food shortage has been created to the detriment of the local residents?

Mr. Morrison: I should imagine that the Regional Commissioner does consult with the Departments concerned.

Air Raid Warnings

Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware

that, in a recent raid on a place, of which he has been informed, the sirens did not sound until the raid had been in progress for 15 minutes and that the sirens may not be sounded until instructions to do so are received from another district; and will he reconsider this position?

Mr. H. Morrison: According to reports which I have received the alert was sounded one minute after the first bombs had dropped. As regards the second part of the Question, instructions to sound sirens are not given from another district, but from the Air Officer Commanding, Fighter Command. Measures for increasing the efficiency of warnings are constantly under consideration, but my hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate that as my predecessor and I have frequently pointed out, there can be no guarantee that a warning will always be given before bombs fall.

Sir A. Lambert Ward: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in certain private industrial undertakings information was given that enemy aircraft were on the way at least 15 minutes before the sirens were sounded?

Mr. Morrison: I was not aware of that, but we are going into the system, and I hope that that difficulty may be overcome.

NATURALISATION REGULATIONS

Flight-Lieutenant Raikes: asked the Home Secretary what changes are effected by the Naturalisation Regulation, dated 5th June (S.R. & O., No. 830 of 1943); and why the Order did not include an explanatory memorandum?

Mr. H. Morrison: The passing of the recent Nationality Act made it necessary to add some provisions of a formal character to the existing Naturalisation Regulations. The opportunity was taken to consolidate the existing Regulations, and the convenience of having all the Regulations on this subject in one document will, I think, be appreciated. As the consolidated Regulations are substantially a reissue of the existing pre-war Regulations and the new provisions raise no question of principle, it did not appear that an explanatory memorandum was called for.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the Business for the next series of Sittings?

Mr. Eden: The Business for the next series of Sittings will be as folows:

First Sitting Day—Supply (12th Allotted Day), Committee. A Debate will take place on Forestry.

Second Sitting Day— Third Reading of the Finance Bill; Committee and remaining stages of the Foreign Service Bill; Report and Third Reading of the Pensions Appeal Tribunals Bill and, if there is time, Second Reading of the Emergency Powers (Isle of Man Defence) Bill.

Third Sitting Day— Supply (13th Allotted Day), Committee. A Debate will take place on Economic Warfare.

I think it will be for the convenience of the House if I inform hon. Members that in view of the present state of Business, it will, I am afraid, be necessary to sit an additional day in each series of Sittings, beginning with the series of Sittings after the next series until— when we hope, all being well, to take the Motion for the Summer Adjournment.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Might I ask a Question on Business? The Leader of the House will remember that on two previous occasions when consideration has been given to the Royal Warrant that laid the basis for the administration of the Ministry of Pensions, the House has asked that before the Royal Warrant is submitted to His Majesty the House should be given an opportunity of considering it. Therefore, now that the Ministry of Pensions is giving consideration to the whole question and that a Debate is to be arranged, I want again to ask whether the Leader of the House will consider the advisability not only of having a Debate upon the Ministry of Pensions, but that the Royal Warrant, before it is submitted to His Majesty, should be submitted for the consideration of this House.

Mr. Eden: I will certainly give consideration to that or some other means of meeting the point the hon. Member has in mind.

Mr. Mander: When is it proposed to introduce the Education Bill?

Mr. Eden: I am not in a position to make a statement about that.

Sir W. Allen: Has the Leader of the House seen the Notice of Motion which has been put down by my colleagues from Northern Ireland and myself with regard to police pensions, and will the Government consider giving a date for the purpose of a discussion of that Motion?

[That in the opinion of this House the Pensions now being paid to members of the Royal Irish Constabulary who retired before 1919 are grossly inadequate, amounting, in some cases, to not more than £42 2S. 4d. (plus 65 per cent. payable under the Pensions (Increase) Acts) and that steps should be taken at the earliest possible moment to rectify this injustice.]

Mr. Eden: I have seen the Motion, but I am afraid that I cannot, in the present state of Business, undertake to give a date. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member might have an opportunity on the Adjournment on one of the additional days upon which we are to sit.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Can the Leader of the House say whether it is intended to have a Debate on the war situation before the Adjournment?

Mr. Eden: At the present moment no Debate is contemplated. I should have to give a little thought as to whether one is necessary later on.

Earl Winterton: I notice that in the statement on Business which my right hon. Friend made, he said that on the First Sitting Day a Debate would take place on forestry. May I repeat the questions I put to him last week? First, will it be possible—I do not think it will under the Rules of the House—to discuss the Report of the Forestry Commission, as it appears to me that that Report, if implemented, would require legislation? Secondly, will there be any statement from the Government Bench opposite from any Minister in regard to what the forestry policy of the Government is likely to be after the war, or will it be merely a statement by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope), who represents the Forestry Commissioners?

Mr. Eden: The question of Order in Debate in Committee of Supply is a matter for the Chair, but I am advised that a wide Debate, covering the Forestry


Commissions Report on Post-War Forest Policy, will be in Order. I understand that under the Forestry Act, 1919, the Commission have already very full powers, including the compulsory acquisition of land and so on. It would seem that the Debate could therefore cover the main provisions of the Report.

Sir Hugh O'Neill: With regard to police pensions, my right hon. Friend has suggested that a Debate might take place on the Adjournment. I think what is required would definitely require legislation, and therefore it could not take place on the Adjournment.

Mr. Eden: I am afraid that even that fact would not provide me with any more time.

Mr. Maxton: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us, since the House is getting rid of the Finance Bill, and since there are only eight Supply Days outstanding, what are the important matters which necessitate the extra Sitting Day and the very late Adjournment for the Summer Recess

Mr. Eden: We have the Pensions Bill and a certain amount of other legislation to finish. I can assure my hon. Friend that with his co-operation we can finish sooner. He will not find me making any difficulties.

Mr. Lawson: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman answered the question of the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham and Worthing (Earl Winterton). Will the Government at some stage— preferably an early stage— make a statement as to their attitude towards the Forestry Commission's Report?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. I had it in mind that we should first like to hear the views of the House, after my right hon. and gallant Friend has made a statement, but it is certainly the intention of the Government to intervene in the Debate.

Mr. Driberg: Will there be any Questions on the extra day?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir.

Mr. G. Nicholson: Will there be any opportunity for raising matters on the Adjournment?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, an extra half-hour will be available.

HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT (SECURITY MATTERS)

Sir H. Williams: Last Thursday a Motion was submitted by the Leader of the House, on which I made a few observations. Next day, on looking at the OFFICIAL REPORT, I found that neither the Motion nor my remarks had been recorded. On examining the Votes and Proceedings, I found that the Motion was recorded. On making inquiries, I found that the omission from the OFFICIAL REPORT was the result of censorship. The Motion of the Leader of the House was omitted, and naturally no remarks made on that Motion were printed. I want to ask, Sir, whether you have any statement to make on the subject?

Mr. Speaker: No. As I told the hon. Member, I am looking into the matter, because I realise that it is perhaps somewhat unsatisfactory from the point of view of hon. Members, but whether we can alter the procedure or not I am not prepared to say at the present moment, because there are security matters involved. Until I am satisfied that there can be no real objection from the security point of view, I am not prepared to make any change in the position regarding the publication of these proceedings in Hansard.

Mr. Eden: Perhaps I might say that I have had several representations from hon. Members about this subject and about reference being made to the days of meeting of the House. The matter is being examined afresh, to see whether any change can be made, but I would not go further than that.

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE

Ninth Report from the Select Committee brought up and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 96.]

BILL PRESENTED

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (INTERIM DEVELOPMENT) (SCOTLAND) BILL,

"to bring under planning control land in Scotland which is not subject to a scheme or resolution under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1932; to secure more effective control of development in Scotland pending the coming into operation of planning schemes; to provide for the transfer to the Secretary of State of certain statutory functions; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid"; presented by Mr. T. Johnston, supported by the Lord Advocate, the Solicitor-General for Scotland, Mr. Westwood and Mr. Allan Chapman; to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting Day, and to be printed. [Bill 48.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Eden.]

>ORDERS OF THE DAY

PENSIONS APPEAL TRIBUNALS [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the bringing of appeals against the rejection by the Minister of Pensions on certain grounds of claims in respect of incapacity for work, disablement or death arising out of the war and against certain other decisions of the Minister of Pensions affecting awards in respect of such claims, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such sums as may be necessary to defray the remuneration of the members of Pensions Appeal Tribunals constituted under the said Act and expenses incurred by or in connection with the said Tribunals.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Dr. Haden Guest: I want to ask the Minister of Pensions a question. What arrangements will be made for seeing that any necessary expert witnesses called by appellants will be paid from funds at the disposal of the tribunals? Many appellants will not have the means

to call these witnesses, either medical or other, and it is very important that it should be made known that such witnesses may be called, and that provision should be made for their payment.

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): This matter is to be dealt with by an Amendment to be moved to the Bill. I ask hon. Members to leave it at that. We can go into it fully on the Bill.

Dr. Guest: That is precisely why I raised the matter; because I wanted to know whether that Amendment would be in Order.

Sir W. Womersley: I presume that it will, although I have no information.

Mr. Silverman: We want to be sure, before we pass this Resolution, that it is wide enough to allow us to amend the Bill, to provide for payment of these expenses. We do not want to be told at a later stage that the Amendment cannot be moved because it is inconsistent with a Money Resolution that we have already adopted.

Sir W. Womersley: I am advised that the Resolution is wide enough.

Question put, and agreed to.

PENSIONS APPEAL TRIBUNALS BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair.]

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: Might I ask a question on procedure? Would you be good enough, Major Milner, to indicate the Amendments that you are not prepared to call? That would be for the convenience of Members who might have business elsewhere than in the Chamber.

The Chairman: In reply to the hon. Member, it is not the practice to indicate beforehand the Amendments selected by the Chair, but if hon. Members care to see me on any particular Amendment, I will do what I can to help.

CLAUSE I.—(Appeals against rejection of war pension claims made in respect of members of the naval, military or air forces.)

Mr. Quintin Hogg: I beg to move, in page 1, line 8, to leave out from "Minister," to the end of line 15.
This is the first of a series of Amendments put down by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) and myself. These Amendments aim at two things: first, at removing that portion of the first five Clauses which limits the appeal under each Clause concerning grants, and, secondly, at amending, in consequence, the last words of the same Clauses, which specify the grounds on which the decision of the tribunal can be based. That series of Amendments goes right through the first five Clauses. The ground on which these Amendments have been conceived is as follows. We thought that the right of appeal given by this Bill should be as wide as possible. We could see no reason for any exception whatever. We thought that if any person whatsoever was aggrieved by a decision of the Minister, that decision should be the subject of appeal to the tribunal. We knew no reason why that should be limited at all. We ourselves do not understand why the Bill could not have been conceived much more simply, the first five Clauses being compressed into one, with a simple statement of three lines giving a right of appeal to any person aggrieved by the decision of the Ministry. But we have, in these Amendments, proceeded slightly more cautiously than that. We propose to omit certain words from each Clause. We keep, therefore, the arrangement of the Bill which sets out the different categories of persons who may appeal, but, in each case where the Clauses go on to limit the grounds of appeal, we propose to omit that limitation, so that we believe that the effect of these Amendments would be to give a general right of appeal to an appellant without any limitation whatever.
We do this on three grounds. The first is that we cannot tell in advance what the effect will be of an elaborate series of five closely-printed Clauses. What we can tell, as a matter of experience in judicial affairs, is that if you set out to define a right of appeal in five closely-printed Clauses, unexpected and unintended limitations are certain to appear. Therefore, we seek to generalise the right of appeal in order to avoid unforeseen results. We also would point out that certain limitations have already appeared in the discussions on the Second Reading of the Bill. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Daventry (Major Manning-ham-Buller) pointed out that the last

words of Clause 1—"on that ground" would be likely, so he thought, to give the Minister the right to come again, if he were beaten on appeal, while under another Clause the appellant would be debarred. My hon. and gallant Friend has put an Amendment on the Paper designed to remove that anomaly. The Amendment which we have in mind would, we think, have also the incidental advantage of removing that anomaly. Again, there is the deliberate intention of the Minister to exclude the right of appeal, in cases where the degree of disablement has been subject to the Minister's decision at any time prior to that at which he decides that the assessment is final. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) has an Amendment on the Paper, of which we approve, designed to overcome that limitation, but we believe and intend that the effect of the proposed generalisation of the right of appeal would be to include the advantages purposed by the Movers of those two Amendments.
We believe that no good reason has been made by the Minister against a general right of appeal. The argument which was used does not, it seems to us, carry conviction. It is said that you must limit the right of appeal, at any rate in questions affecting the degree of assessment, because it is in the interest of the appellant himself. It is said that the essence of these appeals is that they should be final and conclusive, and I should be disposed to agree at this stage with that argument. But the problem is one which is familiar to the courts. It is familiar to the county courts in connection with workmen's compensation, which is an almost exactly analogous subject. The county court procedure seems to me to offer the right analogy to appellants under this Bill. If a person is partially disabled as the result of an industrial accident, the county court agrees finally on the degree of disablement at the time of the hearing. But should his condition thereafter differ, the man may come again. The first decision is final—final that is as to the facts at the time decided, but if the man, or his employer for that matter, can show a material change in his condition, then different issues arise, and a different final conclusion is possible. Therefore, we do not accept the argument which was put forward by the Minister on the Second Reading that it is necessary to limit the right of appeal in matters of degree, simply because it is


necessary that the appeals should have a certain degree of finality. For these reasons, I have pleasure in moving this Amendment, believing that there is no reason whatever and that no case has been made out why the right of appeal granted by this Bill should not be of the most general character possible.

Dr. Haden Guest: On a point of Order. Will the hon. Member explain the effect of another Amendment on the Order Paper, which appears to be consequential on that which he has just moved? I refer to the Amendment in Clause 1, page 2, line 6, after "decision," to insert "together with a short statement of his reasons therefor."

The Chairman: We must deal with that Amendment when we come to it.

Commander Galbraith: On a point of Order. The hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg), in moving this Amendment, has introduced references to certain other Amendments on the Paper. I would like your Ruling, Major Milner, on whether we can now include in this discussion the Amendment in my name which proposes to leave out the words "on that ground" or whether that Amendment is to be discussed separately?

The Chairman: The hon. and gallant Member's Amendment will be taken in the ordinary way. We are now dealing only with the first Amendment on the Order Paper, but references may have to be made, in some cases, to other Amendments on the Paper. Where Amendments run together, I shall endeavour to indicate to the Committee whether in my view it will be convenient to discuss them together.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: I wish to support the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg), on the broad and familiar ground that not only should justice be done but that it should appear to be done. If appellants are allowed to appear before the tribunal and are turned down after a thorough examination, they will be more or less satisfied. If they are not allowed to appear before the tribunal because their cases do not come within the rather narrow scope of this Bill as now drafted, they will have a sense of grievance and that will be multiplied by thousands of cases. They will not understand the

reasons why they have been turned down. I certainly think that the additional expense of travelling and so forth that will be involved in these Amendments, will be well worth while if a sense of satisfaction is given to those men throughout the country.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I, too, support the case which has been put forward by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg). I agree that this Bill could have been a good deal simpler and that the words which the Amendment proposes to omit will, when their effect becomes known, create a great deal of dissatisfaction among those now in the Forces. There is a universal belief among them that if pensions appeal tribunals are to be set up, they will be tribunals to which any of them will have the right of appeal. As the Bill is at present drafted, and if these words which we now propose to omit are included, it is quite obvious that, in the general sense of the term, the proposed tribunal will not be a pensions appeal tribunal at all, because the Minister will have a veto in reference to the cases which may or may not go, before the tribunal. If these words are included, he will have the right, and undoubtedly will exercise it, of preventing a certain number of men who feel that they should have the verdict of the tribunal on their cases, from bringing their appeals to the tribunal. It may be said—and this is possibly one reason why these words have been included—that without them the tribunal would be swamped by an enormous number of appeals, some of them, perhaps, trivial in character. That may be so, but there are vast numbers in the Forces, and it is no argument for refusing the right that a man ought to have, and which the workman has under the county court rules, of having his case tried by the proper tribunal.

Mr. Stephen: I also desire to support the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg). It is of the utmost importance that the principle of generality with regard to appeals should be applied as fully as possible. The argument that I can see against the acceptance of the Amendment is that it might lead to appeals which might be considered trivial, but it is a question as to who is to consider that the matter is trivial. For the person concerned, it is a matter of


supreme importance. If there were a large number of people excluded because it was considered that their appeals would be trivial, there would be a large number of Service people who would be left with what they considered to be a very substantial grievance. I hope that the Minister, now that he has decided to set up the tribunals, will try to make them as wide in scope as possible, so that we might have an end put to all the grievances in the minds of people who have given their services to their country.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Ian Fraser: I ask the Government to consider between now and the Report stage whether they cannot simplify this Measure on the lines put before us by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) in these Amendments. I only want to add this one point for their consideration to the many that have been put before them. The Bill repeats the words of injury "directly attributable to" and "aggravated to a material extent by." These words were not in the Warrants of the last war, and I do not know whether the Committee are aware of that. These are stronger words than were contained in the Warrants of the last war. "Directly" was not there and "material" was not there. Supposing, in co-operation with us, the Government amend the Warrants, shall we not have stereotyped the grounds upon which these tribunals may try these cases rather than have left the door open to the tribunal to try all cases of grievance?

Mr. Bellenger: I only desire to add a few words to the general case put by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg). This is a substantial Amendment, which, I imagine, the Minister will resist. It raises a very important point. As has been expressed by previous speakers, we do not know yet what amendment the Minister is proposing to make in the pensions Warrant in future. He has promised that he is going to make a statement in the middle of this month. We are hoping that in that statement he will make very substantial concessions on the various points that have been put by various hon. Members in this House. It may well be, therefore, that a new pensions Warrant will come into force as the result of the concessions that the Minister, we are hoping, will make in the

middle of this month. Therefore, in view of future events, we desire that an appellant, if his claim is rejected on any ground, shall have an absolute right of having his appeal heard. That is the simple issue which is embodied in this Amendment. If the Minister gets his way, it will be necessary to ask for a whittling down of this Clause, but we would far rather have the Minister grant an absolute right to the appellant to appeal if his claim is rejected. It is true that under the present pensions warrant the two substantial grounds on which he can lodge an appeal are those on which the Minister rejects his claim, namely, that his disability is not aggravated by or is not attributable to his war service. I should imagine, as most of the claims are rejected on these grounds, the Minister will say that therefore most of the appeals will be on these grounds. But we are looking further ahead than this Bill, and that is why we ask the Committee to support us to-day in giving these appellants an absolute right to make an appeal against the Minister's decision.

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): I think we all approach this subject with the same object in mind, and that is, to see that an appellant has his case considered on the widest possible grounds. I can assure the Committee that that is my object, and I hope that we are going to achieve it by the Bill. I agree with the hon. Member who said that the Bill might have been drawn in simpler terms. Speaking as a layman, I feel so too. But I have to accept the advice of those competent to give me legal advice, and they have drafted the Bill, trying to make it as simple as possible, but still it does appear to be very complicated. The Mover of the Amendment referred to the fact that it is a very bulky document and has many Clauses. As I explained on the Second Reading, we are not just dealing with the Armed Forces of the Crown now, but with so many other categories that it was absolutely necessary that Clauses should be inserted to deal with those categories, but the main points in the Bill are pretty much the same as regards one category and another. Whatever right of appeal we give to ex-Service members we must also give to those in the other services covered by the Bill—the Merchant Navy and the civil population as well. Let me make it quite clear to


start with, in answer to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger), that I made a promise that a statement will be made to the House. A promise has been made by the Leader of the House that there will be a Debate on it, and if as a result of that statement and the outline I shall give of the Government's policy, and in the light of the Debate that follows amendments are made to the Royal Warrant, I hope—indeed I am certain of this—that I shall have those amendments in operation before the tribunals commence their sittings. Otherwise it would be a grave disadvantage to those who now regard themselves fortunate in being high on the list if their cases were disposed of before the alteration of the Royal Warrant. Whatever is done with regard to the Royal Warrant, the tribunals will have to adjudicate on the new Royal Warrant and not on the old Warrant. That is quite clear.

Mr. Silverman: Under this Bill?

Sir W. Womersley: Under this Bill, which gives that power. It is just a question of which is the best way to deal with it. I am definitely advised that the Bill as drafted covers the points, at any rate as regards the question of a man's entitlement to a pension, and I have to decide whether a man is entitled to a pension or not, on the two conditions that are laid down in the Royal Warrant. If those conditions are altered and improved as a result of this review, the tribunals will deal with them in the amended form. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not bring in a new Bill?"] I am advised not. We have the learned Attorney-General here, and he will be able to answer that point. That is important, otherwise we should have to abandon the Bill until after the other cases had been brought forward, and I do not think that that would be desirable. My own view is that the sooner we get the Bill on to the Statute Book so that we can proceed with the setting-up of the tribunals, the better for all concerned.
The point at issue is whether the wording in the Bill has the meaning that hon. Members interested in these matters would have desired. It does give a man a right of appeal against any decision I have arrived at as to entitlement. That is what the tribunals have to decide. A question was raised earlier about the case of a man

wanting to appeal against assessment. The answer I gave was that I was desirous that there should be no final assessment until sufficient time had elapsed to see how a man's disease or injury developed. I thought it was in the best interests of the man that that should happen. The man should be given time to establish whether there was permanent injury as the result of anything that had happened in the course of his service before any appeal dealing with assessment was entered into. Therefore it is provided in the Bill that assessment tribunals shall be set up when it is thought desirable, purely in the interests of the appellants.
The hon. Member who moved this Amendment said that a man should have the right of appeal against assessment and could then appeal again later. I very much doubt that. If you are going to have tribunals, you must have final decisions. He referred to workmen's compensation practice. I have consulted Members on all sides of the House, and particularly those who represent ex-Service men, in an endeavour to get the procedure of the tribunals as far away as possible from workmen's compensation practice. We want these tribunals to be informal. I think that is the best word to use. We do not want them to be tied up by case law ruling or anything of that kind. I want the tribunals to have the right to deal with cases without reference to such rules. An hon. Member opposite shakes his head. He belongs to the legal profession. I am arguing this matter from the standpoint of the appellant, and I want to see that he gets a fair hearing of his case. I hope the hon. Member will not press this Amendment, which really would mean wrecking the Bill. I say that because it is all-important that it should be clearly laid down what the tribunals have to adjudicate upon.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: You do not know that until the Royal Warrant is issued.

Sir W. Womersley: If you are going to take away all the conditions laid down by the Royal Warrant and leave open every possible point, then, honestly, I cannot see how the tribunals are to carry on their work. We must have something like uniformity of decision among the tribunals. There will be a large number of tribunals, and unless we have some measure of uniformity there will be no


satisfaction to anyone. You cannot get that unless tribunals are instructed that they have to adjudicate on the definite points at issue. The real grievance in every case is that a pension has been refused. That may have been on the ground that the injury or disease was not attributable to war service or, in the case of disease, was no aggravated by service. The tribunals will have to decide whether a man's constitutional condition has been aggravated by his service. I think the hon. Member will be wise to withdraw the Amendment and let us get on with improvements that can be made, and concentrate on improvement in the Royal
Warrant. We are all trying to do the same thing, and I hope hon. Members will accept my assurance.

Lieutenant-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: I am not a member of the legal profession. I am only an ordinary layman, not, I hope, an altogether stupid person. But I am bound to say the speech of the Minister has left me in a state of considerable confusion. Discussion of the Royal Warrant was ruled out of Order on Second Reading. We have now been given by the Minister a very broad hint that at an early date we may expect a new Royal Warrant or very considerable amendment of the Royal Warrant. We are dealing now with the machinery to be set up for appeal tribunals. When I listened to the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) I envisaged machinery operating under the existing Royal Warrant. It seems to me that we are under great difficulties in proceeding with the Committee stage in these circumstances, and if I had the status of the right hon. Gentleman on the front bench, I should be inclined to move to report Progress. Surely we cannot complete the Committee stage in the light of legislation which may come about at some future date but which we have not seen. I am anxious to do my duty as a Private Member and to do my best for the members of the Fighting Services, and I support the hon. Member for Oxford in trying to improve the machinery for dealing with the Royal Warrant as it now exists. Unless we can obtain some further explanation I think we are wasting time.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I think it may be for the

convenience of the Committee if I draw attention to one or two points in the Bill which are relevant to the matters raised by this Amendment, because we do not want the discussion to proceed on any misunderstanding. Some hon. Members have asked what would be the position if there was an amendment in the Royal Warrant. That would depend on the character of the amendment. In Clause 6 (3) of the Bill there is a provision that in determining an appeal under this Act in respect of any claim or award the tribunal shall have regard to the terms of the Royal Warrant. That is a general injunction that they must have regard to the terms of the Royal Warrant which are relevant to the issue.

Earl Winterton: And which are consistent with Clause 1.

The Attorney-General: If there is anything inconsistent with Clause 1, that is dealt with by Clause 10 (1) of the Bill. which says that where any such Royal Warrant as is referred to in Clause I or any such scheme as is referred to in other Clauses—we need not bother about them —is amended or replaced so as to modify or extend the grounds on which awards may be made and to give rise to any issue on which it appears to His Majesty that an appeal ought to lie under other Clauses, he may by Order in Council make such modifications as appear to him to be necessary for the purpose of granting such a right of appeal. Now the purpose of that was that it was to make it possible, apart from the alteration or any Amendment that may be under discussion at the moment, to keep this Bill, which is a machinery Bill, marching with the Royal Warrant, and our intention under the two Clauses I have referred to was to have provision in order to meet the difficulty. That is not a complete answer to the arguments which have been put forward, but I thought it would be convenient if I explained it to the Committee at this stage.

Mr. Silverman: I think we are all grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the explanation he has given, but it seems to a great many of us to make the position a good deal worse than it was before and to make it more than ever necessary that the Amendment now before the Committee should be carried. What is it he has said? He has said that under


Clause 6 (3) if the Royal Warrant was, first, to make the grounds on which pensions may be awarded different and, further, the grounds on which appeals may be brought forward different, then the Minister might by an Order in Council, if he thought fit and at his discretion, alter this Bill in order to make the right of appeal conform with the new Royal Warrant. But that is exactly what this long agitation in the House and in the country has been against. We do not want the decision on such a point to be left to the Minister. We want to be sure that if a man feels aggrieved by the decision of the Ministry, he shall have the free and unfettered right of appeal to an impartial appeal tribunal against that decision. Whatever decision is reached by the Ministry to which exception is taken by an applicant, there ought to be a free and unfettered right of appeal to an appeal tribunal. Why do the Govt. want these words in? There can only be two explanations of the words. They are either completely and utterly without meaning of any kind or they are a limit upon the right of appeal. It must be one or the other. No one can suppose that if the words were left out there could, under the existing Royal Warrant, be any other grounds of appeal than those stated in that Clause. They reproduce the words of the Royal Warrant and cover the grounds of appeal, but if you do not use these words at all, Clause r will say:
Where any claim in respect of disablement of any person. …is rejected by the Minister. …the Minister shall notify the claimant of his decision, and thereupon an appeal shall lie.…
What is wrong with that? Why is it necessary to complicate something which, on the Minister's own showing, carries the matter no further? I think we are entitled to be suspicious of the Minister's Department. I find it difficult to believe that the Government, the Minister and his Department should make a very strenuous fight to retain words which, on his own showing, are meaningless. If they are so obstinately determined to retain these words, we are inclined to wonder why they want them so much. It seems to us that there can be only one reason for wanting them, namely, because they impose a limit upon the right of appeal. Or is it something else? Are we to take it that what the Minister is really doing is giving us a broad hint either that the Royal Warrant will not be

altered or, if it is altered, that it will riot change the basis on which appeals are granted? Is the Minister saying, "Do not bother about this, because if and when the Royal Warrant is altered these words will still be appropriate"? Let us assume that the Royal Warrant is some day amended in the way that most of us desire to see it amended. Then, under this Bill, the necessary amendment of new grounds on which pensions may be awarded will be excluded from the jurisdiction of these appeal tribunals unless the right hon. Gentleman introduces a new Bill in order to amend this Clause.
When we remember how long it has taken the Minister to introduce the Bill which is before us to-day, I think we are entitled to say, "Let us be sure that we are now getting what we want. Let us have no words that might make people think they were not to have an unfettered right of appeal to an impartial judicial tribunal." If the Minister really means that if the Royal Warrant is altered and he intends to exercise his powers under Clause 6 (3) and do it by Order in Council, why not satisfy us to-day by saying, "I will take the words out, and the Clause will be sufficient to cover the present position and any new position that may be created by any amended Royal Warrant"? If we take the words out, the position is clear now and in the future. If we leave them in, the position may be clear in the future, but it may not. Why the doubt? This Bill has been introduced in order to satisfy the feeling all over the country that these men are not getting a square deal. Why retain the words, the only effect of which on people's minds would be to make them say, "There is still a catch in it"? The Minister said something about the Workmen's Compensation Act and that he wanted to keep as far away from that procedure as possible. I quite understand his desire to have informal tribunals and not be tied by legal formalities in any way, but I would like to warn him that that was exactly what was said when the Workmen's Compensation Bill was being passed. It was said then, "We do not want any courts, trials or actions; we want informal arbitration by arbiters as far removed from that atmosphere as we can get." The result was that there was a great crop of litigation that was more difficult, more abstruse and more complicated than the litigation which arose as


a result of any other Act, even the Rent Restrictions Act which was passed with the same view in mind. These short cuts will not do. If there are words which create doubts and difficulties, and which can be removed without sacrificing the principle of the Bill, then they should be removed.

Earl Winterton: It is quite obvious from the discussion so far that the Committee are almost unanimously against the Minister. I do not wish to be disrespectful to my right hon. Friend and I shall endeavour in the course of my remarks to say nothing offensive about him or his administration but to deal with the points at issue. What are they? The only direct reference which I wish to make to my right hon. Friend—and I hope he will not regard it as wounding—is that I thought it was rather curious that in his statement of the position, when he was asked how it will be possible to operate this Bill when a new Royal Warrant was brought forward, he said, as I understood him, "I understand that that is possible." It is not a question of understanding; it is either so or not. The language used by my right hon. Friend was rather unfortunate, and I should have thought he would have been able to give a definite answer. The answer was given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, but I think that the Minister himself should have been able to give it. That may be a comparatively small point, but it is not quite so small as it might appear, because in their approach to this Bill the Committee must be quite sure that the Minister himself has clearly in mind the objects he wishes to obtain, and that was not wholly evident in the course of his speech.
Here I may say, in passing, that if we were in ordinary opposition in peace-time I am convinced that a Motion to report Progress would have been moved long ago. What was the Attorney-General's answer to the point that "the Minister understood"? He gave a very clear reply and referred to Clause 10 (I). I ask the Committee to give their earnest attention to this point, because, with great respect, one has to have regard not to the position of the Government or the Minister. The two matters that should solely influence us are, first, what is best in the interest of the pensioners, and,

secondly, what is best in the interest of the public. There should be no question of saying whether the Minister has been well treated or not. That does not come into it. What is the position under Clause 10? It is this: There is no obligation upon the Minister at all to act. The word used is "may," so that if the Royal Warrant is altered to the advantage of the pensioners, my right hon. Friend could keep the Bill as it stands to-day. The word used is "may"; there is no mandatory power upon the Minister to act, although perhaps the Attorney-General will correct me if I am wrong.

The Attorney-General: One has to be a little careful not to press the word "may" too much. There are authorities which say that "may" may imply a duty. It is often used in Acts of Parliament instead of the word "shall". I think it will be found to be a word used when there is power which has to be exercised if administration is to be carried on.

Mr. Silverman: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene for a moment to point out what I had overlooked and what the Attorney-General must, I think, have overlooked. We are dealing with a proposed Amendment to Clause r of this Bill, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman intervened a little while ago to say that it was covered by Clause 10 (1). That Clause gives the Minister no power at all to amend Clause 1.

The Attorney-General: Yes.

Mr. Silverman: No. It says:
Where any such Royal Warrant, Order in Council or Order of His Majesty as is referred to in section one of this Act or any such scheme as is referred to in section two or section three of this Act is amended or replaced so as to modify or extend the grounds on which awards may be made.…

The Attorney-General: It also says:
make such modifications of the said sections.…

Mr. Silverman: It refers to Sections 2, 3 and 4.

The Attorney-General: No, to Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4. Look at the marginal note. It is accurate.

Mr. Hogg: I do not want there to be any misapprehension as to the interpretation of Clause 10 (2). It does not give


the Minister power at all. It gives His Majesty a discretion, and such words never imposed a duty on anyone, because you cannot put a duty upon His Majesty by words such as these. It is always discretionary.

The Chairman: I think I ought to tell the Committee that whilst I am very willing to accede to the evident wishes of the Committee, that we should have a general discussion on the first Amendment, it must be on the understanding that if Clause 10 or other matters in the Bill are referred to at any length, we shall not have a second discussion at length when we come to that Clause.

Earl Winterton: It is probably my fault that the Committee was led to discuss the matter. I say the position is thoroughly unsatisfactory when, it may be through no fault of the Minister, we are asked to pass a Clause with certain words in it when, in the light of recent events, in the light of the statement by the Minister himself, and above everything else in the light of the opinion clearly expressed in this House, there is likely to be a considerable alteration in the Royal Warrant. That is a thoroughly unsatisfactory position from the administrative point of view. The second unsatisfactory position is that just pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg), that if the Government—I do not suggest that this Government would do it—wished to run away from their obligations, they can perfectly well do so under the Clause. In fairness to the right hon. Gentleman, I think there is an answer to be given to what I have just said. He can say, "But the House has pressed for this Clause in one form or another. We could not wait until the Royal Warrant was considered before we brought in a Bill, and we had to bring in the Bill in the form in which it is." If he had made that defence in the first instance on the administrative side, I should have been more satisfied than I am, but he did not. He tried to pretend that it was a convenient course in itself, and I say emphatically that it is not.
Coming to the actual words proposed to be left out, let me restate the argument which many of us have used. We were quite rightly precluded on the Second Reading from going into the whole question of the Royal Warrant. Here we can clearly deal with it, because

these are the words in the Royal Warrant. The first point which has never been answered as far as I know is that put by the hon. and gallant Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser). Never in my experience has anyone had a greater technical and practical knowledge of the Pensions Acts than the hon. and gallant Baronet. Why is it that the words we are now using which are the words in the Royal Warrant are less favourable to the pensioner than were the words in the Royal Warrant in the last war? The right hon. Gentleman may say they are not less favourable, but the question has been constantly asked, and it has never been answered from the Front Bench.
The other point I want to make is a fresh one, which has not come up in discussion. Under the words proposed to be left out the tribunals are limited to a very considerable extent. They are especially limited by the words that it arose or existed during such service and was aggravated by such service to a material extent and remains aggravated thereby. However strongly the right hon. Gentleman may urge on the Committee and state from platforms in the country that you must have limiting words of this kind, if you are to do justice to the taxpayer as well as to the pensioner, you will never persuade not merely the pensioner himself and his relatives but the people of the country that when a man or woman enters any of His Majesty's Services absolutely fit, is passed A.I, and subsequently becomes ill, it is not in some way attributable to service. If I were in the right hon. Gentleman's position, I should very likely take the Departmental point of view, because some Ministers always take the Departmental point of view. He may say, "That is all very well, but the Noble Lord knows perfectly well that if we did that, we should have to pay the taxpayers' money in a number of cases where it never ought to be paid out." That may be so, but the running sore in the body politic will remain, and it will get worse as the war goes on.
I know something about medical practice, because I have been a member of the British Hospitals Association and have been chairman of a hospital for 30 years past. No one will dispute that the greatest unknown factor in the whole of medicine is the original cause of cancer. There is more difference of opinion be-


tween doctors on that than on any other question. My right hon. Friend the other day gave a most sympathetic answer in a most sympathetic manner about a man who joined the Army in perfect health but developed cancer and died of it. He said that under these words that we are seeking to exclude, which are in the Royal Warrant, this was not directly attributable to Army service. How does he know? How does anyone know? If a man or woman in a perfectly healthy state goes into the Service and dies, you will never persuade the public that the illness was not due to Army service in some way. You may make the answer, "That may be so. The Noble Lord may be right. But in the interests of the taxpayer I shall have to continue to do it." I only say, from the point of view of public policy and the effect on the minds of the public and of war pensions, that you will never persuade them. I beg my right hon. Friend to consider whether it is necessary to have these words in this form and to base himself upon the defence that these are the words of the Royal Warrant.
We have asked for two things. We have asked for the tribunals, and we have asked for a less rigid insistence on the actual words of the Royal Warrant. My right hon. Friend has met us to some extent on the first point. He has most emphatically not met us on the second. The Committee would not be doing its duty, in view of the opinions which have been expressed in all parts of the Committee during the Debate, in Questions and on platforms, if they did not vote against the Government. If they supported the Government, they would be stultifying themselves, because this is a primary issue. It cannot be dismissed as the right hon. Gentleman has suggested. It is one of the issues that arise under the Bill on which the Government have failed to satisfy the Committee.

Major Sir George Davies: While I do not share the suspicions of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) about the motive behind this Clause, I very largely share his general view about it and that of my Noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton). It is an issue of prime importance. The dilemma as I see it is this. After considerable pressure from all quarters in the House and outside, we are

arranging for the setting-up of these tribunals. As the result of pressure from the same quarters, we have had forecast to us that substantial changes are going to be made in the Royal Warrant. The Government naturally do not wish to postpone the coming into operation of these tribunals until such time as the Royal Warrant may or may not be amended, and therefore they have tried to bring in a Measure which will be applicable if and when the Royal Warrant is to be substantially amended. This is a psychological matter. Every Member's postbag has been filled for years with cases, whether well-founded or not, of people who feel a festering sore because they have not had a square deal. It is useless to tinker with it. We have to realise the situation and deal with it on a broad scale in order to do away once and for all with this constant running sore of dissatisfaction that their case has not been fairly dealt with. There is a price to be paid, there will be a congestion of work for the tribunals, and there will be a call on the taxpayers to pay out moneys which perhaps cannot be legally substantiated.
Now we have an opportunity really to deal in a broad way with the matter. This harmless-looking Amendment has been brought forward. It does not seem much in itself, but it runs fundamentally through the whole of the Bill. It is going to change it completely. If my right hon. Friend accepts it, it is stultifying the whole Bill. It seems to me that the only common-sense thing that can be done is to move to report Progress in order to reconsider the whole situation, but we do not want to play party politics on an issue like this, particularly the party with which I am identified, which has given whole-hearted support to the Government in all their undertakings for winning the war. The last thing I want to do is to voice anything which will be embarrassing, particularly to my right hon. Friend, for whom I have the greatest affection and respect. At the same time we are in a dilemma, and I think we are going to stultify ourselves, having got to the situation of setting up these tribunals with every prospect of substantial amendments to the Royal Warrant, and then tinkering with the matter so that we still leave dissatisfaction and shall still have a public opinion which feels that it has not had a square deal. It is a psychological more


than a logical question, and the Minister will be making a very great mistake if he ignores the feeling in the Committee.

Mr. Mander: I want to call attention to certain words in Clause 10 (1) which have not yet been referred to but which make the position more unsatisfactory than we have realised up to the present, for the words "may by Order in Council" mean that the matter is left to the Minister. I want to call attention to certain earlier words:
any issue on which it appears to His Majesty that an appeal ought to lie.
That is a matter of policy. The Government have to decide whether an appeal ought to lie. It may be for reasons of economy that they do not want to extend the right of appeal. It is a political decision which has to be taken and that makes it all the more important that we should during the passage of this Bill make certain that any amendment in a new Royal Warrant will carry with it the same right of appeal for certain and not at the will of the Government. I hope that my right hon. Friend who I am sure is anxious to give satisfaction to the Committee and the country in this matter, will respond to the obvious feeling in the Committee and consider whether there cannot be in some way some Amendment which will make it certain that the right of appeal will as a matter of right and law go with any amendment to the Royal Warrant.

Mr. McEntee: I want to put a simple proposition to the Minister. My personal experience of the right hon. Gentleman has been a very happy one. He has always given personal consideration to any cases that have been put by hon. Members and my view is that he has given sympathetic consideration to them. There is one class of case, however, that of cancer, which has already been mentioned. How can the Minister or any doctors determine whether it is or is not attributable to any cause? Nothing will convince a man or woman who has been passed A.1 that, after some period of service he or she is put out of the service because of cancer, the disease was not caused by the service. The Minister is taking to himself the right to say without qualification or hesitation whether service is or is not the cause of the disability. The Minister has divide

ex-Service men or any appellants under this Bill into two sections—one those who have the right of appeal if their claims have been rejected by the Minister, and those who have not the right of appeal but may be given that right. Under what conditions may a man be given a right of appeal? He has the right under Clause 1, paragraphs (a) and (b), and the Attorney-General went out of his way to explain the other circumstances under Clause 10 in which he may have a right of appeal. He can only have that right if His Majesty determines that it should be granted. In practice that will mean the Minister will determine whether the right of appeal shall be granted. The Minister, however, has already determined that the application for a pension shall not be granted. When the applicant desires to appeal against that decision the Minister has to determine whether the right shall be granted. That is an unfair position.
Is not the whole question a very simple one? A man goes into the Service and contracts, say, tuberculosis or V.D.H. I have had many such cases, as other Members have. The man is then told that the disease is not attributable to or has not been aggravated by his service. I have produced medical evidence from several highly qualified medical practitioners that in their view the disability was directly due to military service, but the Minister has turned the application down. He may continue to turn down such applications in certain circumstances. The applicant may have the right of appeal in some circumstances, but in others he may not have the right unless the Minister determines otherwise. I think it is the view of the Committee—at any rate, I hope it is—that any person who is called up or volunteers for service and who is compelled after a period to resign because of his physical condition, ought at least to have the right to appeal to some one other than the Minister to say whether his condition is due to his service. If a person is dissatisfied with the decision of a magistrate or a judge, he has the right of appeal. If a man is judged by a panel of four or five doctors to be AI physically, and if afterwards his condition deteriorates and he is put out of the Service as unfit, no human being would accept the decision that the disability is not to some extent due to service. If


the Minister says that is not so and no compensation can be granted, the man ought to have the right of appeal. That is the view of the House and the country and the Minister would be well advised to take that view before circumstances arise which may compel him to.

Mr. Astor: I would with the utmost sincerity and deference ask the Government whether they cannot possibly accept this Amendment. They have said that they are trying to get exactly the same results as we are. It is quite clear that the general opinion of the Committee prefers the method involved in this Amendment to the method which the Government propose. Not one hon. Member has risen to agree with the Government. We want a general right of appeal and to have it stated in as clear and simple terms as possible. Neither the Attorney-General nor the Minister has produced any objection that any dire results would follow if the Amendment were accepted. They have merely stated that in their view they thought it was not necessary, but the whole Committee obviously prefers the Amendment. I do hope that they will say now that they will accept it.

Mr. Dobbie: I support the Amendment, in view of its comprehensive character and of the general volume of opinion expressed by successive speakers in this discussion. I would like to ask the Minister now whether he is in a position to make some sort of statement, so that we might, in view of the large number of Amendments on the Paper, proceed with the work of the Committee. This is the machinery which will to a great extent bring confidence or otherwise to members of the Forces in relation to the Royal Warrant. If the machinery is not right, if it will not give power to the tribunals to do the thing that we think is right, a tremendous lot of confidence in the new Royal Warrant will be lost. I hope that the Minister will now be in a position to make a statement accepting this Amendment because of its justness and because the people concerned are entitled to it. I can assure the Mover of the Amendment that if he takes it to a Division the party to which I belong will give it their complete support.

Flight-Lieutenant Raikes: The right hon. Gentleman is in

rather a difficult position, but he must appreciate the strength of the arguments in favour of this Amendment which have been put forward from all quarters of the Committee. When an Amendment is discussed in Committee hon. Members have to consider it on its merits. We have debated this one for an hour, and although the Minister has certain difficulties, he must realise that the general view of the Committee is in favour of avoiding limitation as far as possible of the right of appeal. I awaited the Minister's answer with some anxiety, because I thought that there might be a real answer, but the only answer has been that unless he has the existing words or words like them in the Bill, there will be no uniformity and his tribunals will not know what to do. That has been the only argument put forward. I would suggest that my right hon. Friend's difficulty would not be overcome in that way, because if the Royal Warrant is to be produced in a short time, the very words on which he is insisting will be meaningless. It seems to me that we cannot put words in the Bill which the greater part of the Committee do not like and which are likely to be meaningless at a very early stage. I appreciate that there are technical difficulties, but I am sure that if the right hon. Gentleman were to find some words to meet the wishes of the Committee his stature would not be less in the eyes of any Member.

Mr. Willink: In view of the condition of my voice I had not intended to speak, but I feel so strongly about this Clause that I feel bound to do so. The technical and narrow character of the drafting will give rise to great difficulties. I would refer to three points in particular.
The main object of the Amendment is to get rid of a limitation on the right of appeal. It deals with that in a general way, but I should like to refer to three matters in respect of which, in my view, the whole Clause is thoroughly faulty. The first is that an appeal only lies under this Clause when a claim is wholly rejected. It is obvious that a man who considers he has zoo per cent. disability and is awarded only 40 per cent. ought to be able to appeal. The Clause is faulty in that it only provides for an appeal where the rejection is total. The second point is that all


the Minister has to do is to inform the claimant of his decision. All he has to say is "Your claim is rejected." He has not to give any reasoned grounds for that judgment, and the man does not know whether his disability is being attributed to his misconduct, or whether his complaint is regarded as not being attributable to war service or as not having been aggravated by war service. Nothing has to be done except to inform the applicant that his claim is rejected.
The third point is this: The Committee will remember that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Daventry (Major Manningham-Buller) asked the Parliamentary Secretary whether it would not be possible, when the claim had been rejected once, and there was another appeal for the claim to be rejected by the Minister on another ground. The Parliamentary Secretary replied:
We are a little uncertain as to whether that is so. We think not. If it is so we shall he very surprised."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th June, 1943; col. 1424, vol. 39o.]
We have had not a word about that from the Minister of Pensions or from the Attorney-General. The claim may fail in the first instance on the ground of the complaint not being attributable to service nor aggravated by war service, but it is open to the Minister and those in his Department to keep their second case up their sleeve, and it is within the option of the Minister when the appeal has been allowed, to withhold or reduce the award. It is intolerable that a pensioner should succeed and that the Act should give the right to the Minister then to turn round and put up another case against the claim. On these three grounds I submit that this Clause is wholly faulty and should be withdrawn.

Mr. Butcher: rose—

Hon. Members: Divide.

Mr. Butcher: I do not intend to delay the Committee, because I feel that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions will be happy in the reinforcements he has received from the Government side. Nothing is more refreshing than to see him in consultation with the Leader of the House, the Lord President of the Council, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Patronage Secretary. Some of us who feel strongly on this matter have the

greatest friendship for the Government and are prepared to support the Government on all matters of major policy whole-heartedly and with the utmost loyalty, but when it comes to matters of this kind we propose to exercise our own judgment and to carry our judgment into the Division Lobby.

Mr. Hubert Beaumont: I want to add my voice to the appeals made to the Minister to accept this Amendment. May I suggest to the Minister that he would do not only a generous but a very wise thing if he accepted the Amendment? If he does not, if he hardens his heart, it will be taken to be a challenge, and the majority of Members will of necessity, not only because of their convictions but also because of the promises they have made to their constituents, have to support this Amendment. I have not yet recorded a vote against the present Government since its formation—I exercise a right of discretion—but I shall be on this occasion compelled to do so not only because I disapprove entirely of the Clause as it is but also because of the promises I have made to my constituents on this matter. It can be truly said that the attitude the Committee is taking up is absolutely representative of the wishes of the people of the country and that the attitude of the Minister is quite out of harmony with the wishes of the country. I cannot understand why he has not been more receptive to public opinion. He is a man of great receptivity, a man who claims to know the pulse of the people, and yet in this particular matter he has hardened his heart and opposes the will of the common people.
The country demands that justice shall be done to men and women who are forced to leave the Services on account of ill-health. The measure of the sincerity of this House will be determined by how its Members vote on this Amendment and from that the country will judge and assess the honesty of the intentions of Parliament. This Amendment is fundamental, and deals with the most important Clause of the Bill. It is the very crux of the problem. If 1he Amendment is accepted—and I hope that despite the reinforcements which have come along the Minister will have the wisdom to accept it—the Minister will be credited with sound common sense and


with a good understanding. If he does not accept it he will be regarded as a man of ill judgment.
It may be said that some people might get money from the country which they otherwise would not get if a universal right of appeal was allowed. That may be so, but I submit that where there is a doubt the sick man or woman should have the benefit of the doubt rather than that we should by Act of Parliament deprive men and women of what is their absolute right. It is quite impossible, with all the logic that one can bring forward, to justify to the parents of a man or a woman, or to the man or the woman, who have been accepted into the Forces, who have been passed by four or five doctors as AI and fit for service and afterwards been discharged on account of illness or disability that their illness is neither attributable to nor aggravated by war service. We have to accept full responsibility after having taken a man or woman into the Forces as fit, and the nation must accept the responsibility and liabilities of that action. I hope the Minister will see the wisdom of bowing to the storm and will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Eden: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
Let me first apologise to the Committee for the fact that I have not been here during the greater part of the discussion, and that applies also to my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council, who is more informed in these matters than I am. The reason is that there was a meeting of some importance of the War Cabinet, and with the best will in the world it is not possible to be in two places at once. I have received an account of what has passed and of the speeches which have been made, and during the last few moments I have had the advantage of listening to one or two. Let me therefore make plain the position of the Government. In the first place, it was never our purpose to drive through this proposal against the wishes of Parliament. What was in our minds was that there was a demand for the early setting-up of these tribunals, a demand which we sought to meet. In present circumstances, and with the Committee knowing that an examination is being made by the Government of proposals which may affect the

Royal Warrant, it is quite natural that the Committee should say that that alters the position fundamentally, and we should much prefer to look at this picture again when we know what are the proposals which the Government are going to bring forward. I do not think that is an attitude which the Government can really say is an utterly unreasonable one. In fact, it is one which clearly has a very large measure of force. If that be the position of the Committee, it is one which, so far as the Government are concerned, I am ready to accept. I am quite ready to agree that this Bill should stand over until such time as the Government's other proposals, the general proposals, are made available to the House so that the House can examine this in relation to the new Government proposals and see the picture as a whole. That seems to me to be a request which can quite reasonably be made, and in order to meet it I am proposing that we should report Progress.

Mr. Tinker: I think the proposal just made to us is a sound one. I think it is a sound one because, as I see it, even when these tribunals are set up, we shall be in relatively the same position as we are at the present time. Everybody has cheered the Minister of Pensions and said how sympathetic and generous he has been in all the cases which has has dealt with, how he has gone as far as he could go according to the powers that he has, but the tribunals will only have the same powers. I have argued all along in favour of the principle "Fit for service, fit for pension" and I can see nothing in this Bill which will grant that. We should have to accept what is in the Royal Warrant, and that means that the tribunals cannot go any further than the right hon. Gentleman himself has gone. I have in mind a specific case——

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr Charles Williams): On the question of reporting Progress, we can only argue whether it is advisable to report Progress or not; we cannot argue about cases which the hon. Member may have brought to the Minister or details of the Amendments which we have been discussing.

Mr. Tinker: Thanks for the guidance. On this point I am speaking for myself, and I am prepared to accept the proposal


to report Progress so that we can see later what is proposed.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: I am afraid I can hardly agree with the Leader of the House in his proposal to report Progress. I believe it only means —not that I distrust the Leader—that we are to put off the evil day because the Government have recognised at a late hour in the day that the tornado has reached the Floor of the House, and they wish to reshape the situation in a manner which will be unsatisfactory to Parliament when the matter comes forward again at a later stage. What we have been arguing is that certain terms contained in Clause I are of themselves grossly misleading and hamstring appellants. The Minister has indicated clearly what is not only his own attitude but the attitude of the Government. I believe that the Government should now accept the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for the City of Oxford (Mr. Hogg) and let us get on with the rest of the Clauses to-day, and therefore I shall be disposed, if there is a Division, to vote against the Government reporting Progress.

Sir Ian Fraser: I should like to thank the Leader of the House for his most conciliatory speech. I think this is the first occasion during these Debates when one with his authority, and after consultation with his colleagues in the War Cabinet, has shown us that the Government mean to have full regard to the wishes of Parliament. I should like to thank him very much for what he has said, and, for what my voice is worth, I should like to ask my hon. Friends on all sides of the House to accept this proposal to report Progress. Then the Government will have a chance to, and I hope they may be good enough to, consult with those who have put down Amendments, so that by good will and in co-operation a Bill may come forward which lines up properly with the new world we are in and bring satisfaction. May I add that I am sure that it is not outside the gifts of the Lord Chancellor or the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Pensions to see to the administrative work of getting together the personnel of the tribunals, and arranging for the rooms in which they will sit, the clerks which they will need, and other things which are not in dispute, so that even if it be

a week or two before the Bill comes back no time will have been lost.

Sir Cyril Entwistle: I hope that the Committee will accept the Motion moved by the Leader of the House. I would like to put forward a reason why I think it would be to the advantage of the pensioner arid everyone that the proposal should be accepted. Even if the Amendment had been accepted by the Government I do not think its effect would have been so fundamental. The first point in the Amendment——

The Deputy-Chairman: We must rot say anything about the Amendment.

Sir C. Entwistle: Then I will not pursue that point. It is clear that the tribunals will be able to hear appeals under the Royal Warrant, and if the Royal Warrant is to be amended, as we hear it is, on quite fundamental points, there will be no loss through any delay in the setting up of the tribunals. Every case which, in the meantime, would be heard under the Bill as it now stands, would have to be reheard when the Royal Warrant was amended, if such Amendment affected the grounds of entitlement. Therefore, I consider that Members who want concessions made in the directions that have been advocated will not lose anything by accepting the Motion to report Progress at this stage, as it will save the rehearing of those appeals, when the pensions Warrant is subsequently amended.

Mr. Silverman: No one would object to the Government having an opportunity to reconsider the whole matter, if the result were to give the House and the country a better Bill, but the Government have been considering this matter now for a very long time. The Amendment that was moved and that led the Leader of the House to make this proposal is not one that went to the root of the Bill at all. It is true that we are all anxious that, if the Royal Warrant were ever amended, the Bill should give a right of appeal in the new circumstances created by any Amendment to the Royal Warrant, but that can be done very simply now. If the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) had been accepted or voted by the Committee, the Clause would be ample to cover both the present position and any new position which might be


created if the Royal Warrant were ever to be amended. If we have convinced the Government that the words which we want to leave out ought to be left out, the simple thing to do is to leave them out now and to go on with the enactment of the necessary machinery for the appeal tribunals, in the way that would have been followed if the Amendment were accepted, and which would be applicable now and in the future, whatever changes are made.
I resent very much that the Bill establishing appeal tribunals, which we have wanted for so long, should be indefinitely postponed because of the reluctance of the Government to accept what is really no more than a formal Amendment. It is wrong that the whole thing should be thrown back into the melting pot. If the Committee adopt the Motion to report Progress, since there are only three or four weeks left, we shall not get another Bill before the Adjournment for the Summer. If we reject the proposal to report Progress, we may hope to have the pensions appeal tribunals working in August. If we report Progress we shall not. When the Bill is indefinitely postponed a new agitation and a new controversy will begin which will be totally unnecessary. Nothing in the Amendment would justify so drastic a proposal. It would almost lead one to think that the Government are so reluctant to have pensions tribunals at all that, having been reluctantly compelled to introduce a Bill, they snatch at the first excuse for withdrawing it and delaying the matter again. There is nothing whatever in the proposal that has been made that ought to delay or impede in any way the creation of the tribunals now, and the thing coming into active operation on the date originally promised. If the Royal Warrant is amended at some other time, we should accept the Amendment proposed in the Committee. The machine will be just as good for that purpose as it is for this purpose. Those who have led the fight for the Amendment and for the appeal tribunals for so long would be well advised indeed not to fall into the trap that the Leader of the House has set for them.

Mr. Mander: I have considerably more confidence in the sincerity and good intentions of the Government than the hon. Member who has just spoken. The

Leader of the House has acted most wisely in responding, as he always does, to the manifest feeling of the Committee. As I understand the proposal, it is that those concerned will get into touch with hon. Members who are interested in the different Amendments to the Bill and that a further Bill will be brought forward before we adjourn. I take the speech of the Leader of the House to mean that the Government will go into this matter, and that they intend to bring forward an amended Measure before we adjourn and before the Recess, taking into consideration the views expressed in the Committee. If that is so, there is no reason for any delay in the setting-up of the tribunals. The necessary arrangements can be got on with by the Minister of Pensions, and before we adjourn we shall be able to pass legislation that will be satisfactory to the House, covering any future amendment to the Royal Warrant.

Mr. Hogg: As I fear that I have had something to do with bringing about this situation, I hope the Committee will forgive me if I try to make my own position clear on the proposition now before us. I should like to express my gratitude to my right hon. Friend for his sensitiveness to the feeling of the Committee. I welcome it. I listened with a great deal of sympathy to the argument addressed by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman). I had taken the view that this was a comparatively minor Amendment which the Government might have accepted easily, and was not fundamental to the Bill. The Government have been generous to the Committee, and it is now time for the Committee to be generous to the Government and to accept the proposal which has been put before it. I would only say that I am sure the Government will not take this attitude on the part of the Committee for any sign of weakness on any of the other Amendments, which otherwise would have been discussed. The Amendment which was before us was one of the least, and though feeling was strong about it, feeling would have been a great deal stronger on some of the others.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: This is one of the occasions when I should have thought a Back Bencher would have welcomed the change of heart on the part of the Government. It is many years


since I sat on the back benches, and therefore perhaps I do not always enter into the back bench spirit. Let us look at this matter as a problem affecting Members on all sides of the House. The question of the treatment of ex-service men is no political party matter. Everybody is obviously interested. If the Government have been a little reluctant and a little slow, at least there is something to be said for accepting an act of grace from them. I agree with what has just been said about the Amendment. It is not without importance, but I can see some of the difficulty of the Government about accepting it. It is not one of the major difficulties that we may have to face, however, as the Bill goes through its remaining stages.
I was not in my place when the Leader of the House made his proposal, but I take it to mean that the Government are prepared to reconsider the implications of the Amendment. I will go further than that and suggest that now the Government have had some indication of the temper of the Committee—I do not mean temper in the bad sense—and the tone of the discussions, they should take the Bill back and look at all the Amendments and perhaps introduce a greatly improved Bill. I think ex-service men will be grateful not merely to the Government, but to the Committee for the line that has been taken to-day. It has been pointed out that it may mean a great deal of delay. I do hope that if the Committee accept the Motion to report Progress, as I hope it will, the Government understand that the opportunity is not to be used as an excuse for further delay. I am trying to make my own position clear, I have been in office, and I know that questions get shirked. I hope the Government will sincerely and honestly look at this problem in the light of the expressed wishes of the Committee. Hon. Members are in far closer association with ex-service men and with the rank and file of the electors than Ministers can possibly be. If there were an assurance that this matter is to be dealt with speedily, that the whole of the Amendments on the Paper are to be looked at, perhaps a little more considerately than they have been looked at by the Government in the past, and that before we rise—and we have a few weeks in front of us yet—we shall have the Bill reintroduced, I would in that case ask Members on all sides of the Committee, if

those assurances are given, to accept the Motion to report Progress.

Mr. Turton: I agree very largely with what has just been said, but I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that the claims of a number of ex-Service men have been turned down, the men being informed that the claims would be heard by the new pensions appeal tribunals. Unless we get an assurance that what is now happening will not delay the hearing of those claims, I fear those ex-Service men will be much disappointed. Can the Leader of the House give us an assurance that we will not adjourn for the Summer Recess until we have approved the new Royal Warrant and have passed all stages of the Bill? I put it like that, because we have been informed that the new pension appeal tribunal would be set up not later than early in September. If the Government would give that assurance, it would mean that the Bill could be in operation by that date. I am most grateful to the Leader of the House for the attitude which he has taken to-day, and I reinforce the appeal that between now and the time when this Bill, or a further Bill, is introduced the Minister should discuss the matter with those who have put down Amendments and should try to reach a certain measure of agreement.

Mr. Stephen: I am surprised at the number of Members who have expressed their gratitude to the Government for bringing forward the Motion to report Progress. I do not feel in the least grateful to the Government. I think their action is a very mean action. It is quite obviously the only way in which the Government could have avoided defeat. The whole of the Committee was in favour of the Amendment, and in these circumstances instead of the Government accepting the Amendment the Government thought fit to bring forward a Motion to report Progress. The hon. Member who preceded me hoped that we would get the assurance from the Government that the Bill would be put upon the Statute Book before the Recess, and that there would also be the amendment of the Royal Warrant before the Recess. I have no doubt that we shall get that assurance from the Government, but the attitude of the Government to-day in their stubborn refusal to accept


this Amendment appears to me to show that despite the attitude of Members of this Committee and of the people outside this Committee in seeking the generous treatment for Servicemen who have been wounded or have lost their health in the service of the country, and civilians who have also suffered in the service of the country, are going to have anything but generous treatment from this Government. I protest against the Motion and the attitude of the Government in refusing to accept what was the obvious opinion in the Committee by accepting the Amendment and giving to the people of the country what they and ex-Service men should get—"Fit for Service, then fit for pension."

Mr. Eden: I really rise to answer one or two points raised, and in particular to reply to those points put to me by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood). I can say to both these questions, first, whether this particular Amendment will be re-examined with a view to trying so far as it lies in our power to meet the points in the Amendment, and secondly, whether later Amendments will be similarly examined, the answer is, "Yes, Sir." I would like to assure the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) that I am not manoeuvring or trying to do some rather clever dodge. I am afraid I am not half a good enough Parliamentarian to do that. My purpose is to try to give expression to what I feel is the real feeling of Members on all sides of the House. It is not a party question but one with which Parliament wishes to deal on what it considers is a fair basis. It is the duty of the Government to pay attention to this feeling, and that is the object I had in moving to report Progress. I do not consider that this need cause any delay at all in the actual setting-up of the tribunals. I am not proposing to withdraw the Bill but only to report Progress. Though I cannot give a definite pledge this should not cause any delay at all. In view of this, I ask the Committee to agree to the Motion.

Dr. Haden Guest: I want to emphasise the fact that many Members feel it is not a matter of only just one Amendment. I myself have felt that there are a number of obscurities about the Bill. The Amendments revealed those obscurities. There is the question

of the onus of proof, which differs between a man wounded in war and a man who appeals about sickness. There is a whole series of questions which need clearing up about this Bill at the present time because of the way it is drafted. I speak as one who has been a member of a tribunal. It would make the work of the tribunals difficult. I would urge that this Bill not only be taken back but considerably redrafted so as to have clear thinking behind it to enable the work of the pensions tribunals to be carried out. I think that is the only course possible. If we are to be grateful to anyone, it is not only to the Leader of the House, but to the Committee itself. The Bill as brought forward at present is an unworkable Bill, and I hope it will be brought forward in a form in which it will be workable.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I wish to re-emphasise to the Leader of the House that just examining the Bill afresh will not be enough. I feel that he does realise the temper in this Committee—in all parts of this Committee—and the temper of the people outside in desiring a Measure which gives to the people now serving in the various branches of national service full opportunities to have their cases examined by an independent tribunal, and anything less than that, in spite of what the Minister of Pensions may say, will not be good enough, and this Committee, I feel sure, will not stand for it.

Captain Cobb: Will it be possible, in view of what has happened, to put forward a date on which the House will have an opportunity of discussing the Minister's proposals for improvements in the Royal Warrant? I understood we were to discuss that in July. If we could have that date put forward, it would help to make it easier to come to a decision.

Mr. Eden: The hon. and gallant Member will understand that the matter is before the Government now. It is pretty. complicated. I cannot promise that we shall go more quickly than we are going. We are going as fast as we can.

Mr. Buchanan: I find myself in slight disagreement with some of the remarks that have been made. I think the Bill ought to be withdrawn. If the Bill is to meet the wishes of the Committee, I do not think you can make this Bill satisfactory by a wholesale amendment of it. I am quite convinced that if


the Bill is to be a success, I would sooner wait months, even right into the winter, and have a proper Bill than rush it through now and have an improper Bill. I do not think it matters much about the right of appeal. What matters is the conditions under which those concerned can appeal. The appeal in itself really matters little if things remain the same. My own view about it is that the Bill is very unsatisfactory and raises wide issues. The Leader of the House said that he was going on with the present Bill. Quite frankly, I think that amending and chopping it up is not a proper way. I think the approach of the Bill, the basis of the Bill, is wrong, and if I were giving advice, it would be that I am not keen for it next week, next month. I know that when this Bill is passed it will govern people for years to come, and I would sooner take a month longer in order to safeguard the years ahead than save a week now and lose something for many years ahead.
What I am anxious about is that the Bill itself should safeguard certain rights, and in my view this Bill within its terms could not easily do that. I think the best way is to withdraw the Bill entirely and for the Government to make a new approach to the Bill, to bring a new mind to the Bill, redraft it, and introduce the new Measure which I think it has now been demonstrated is required. The Leader of the House appears always to be using his simplicity. Those who know him better know he is not nearly so simple as he would like us to believe. That is one of the masquerades that has made him successful—appearing simple when he is not. I have been too long here to be impressed by statements about the Government being generous to the House. It does not work. The Government have put forward the action proposed for a sensible reason, that if that had not been done, the Government would have been defeated. Do not let us go on congratulating a generous Government. Let us find something of the meaning of Parliament, and this meaning of Parliament does not mean that we have to get up and be awfully kind to each other but that we should get up and say the things we believe in. The Government have moved to report Progress, because the Leader of the House knew he would be defeated. Like a good Parliamentarian, he changed his mind and moved to report Progress. That is

good politics, right and properly done. I say to him that as well as this Amendment there are other Amendments that raise most fundamental issues, and that even if the Bill were carried having regard only to this Amendment, there would be so strong a minority and feeling that it would be almost impossible for any Government to go on. I say frankly that you should recast the Bill in the light of these Amendments and in the light of the feelings that have been expressed to-day. I would sooner wait a month, sooner wait six weeks, and get a Bill drafted properly and thoroughly than rush it through. As the Bill stands now, it does not matter twopence whether it goes through or not. The position now if this Bill went through is that so far as the ex-Service man is concerned the right of appeal to the tribunals would be no better than the right of appeal to the Minister, if as good. As the Bill stands, and even with certain tiny Amendments, it is of little use. I want to see, not the Bill patched up on its present basis, but a new Bill on lines which I have indicated.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: I wish to ask whether it is really the intention of the Government to set up these appeal tribunals and have them operating and arriving at decisions before the House discusses the Royal Warrant? The House may make decisions affecting the Royal Warrant. Is it really the intention of the Government to have these tribunals operating and arriving at decisions before we fully discuss the Royal Warrant with all its implications?

Sir W. Womersley: I know that the hon. Member for very good reasons was not present when I made it quite clear, when dealing with this Amendment in the first instance, that anything that was contained in an amended Royal Warrant would be binding on the tribunals. That is the complete answer.

Mr. Davidson: Alterations may take place on the discussions in July, but is it the intention of the Government to have these appeals tribunals operating before that?

Sir W. Womenley: No.

Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.

RESTRICTION OF RIBBON DEVELOPMENT (TEMPORARY DEVELOPMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
In doing so, I would express the hope, which may be academic, though I trust not, that the Bill will receive the general approval of the House. I am bold enough to hope that I shall be able to show my hon. Friends who have an Amendment on the Paper for the rejection of the Bill, that they too would do well to support it. It may save time if I say a few words in explanation of the Bill. I will make them as brief as I can, because I believe that the general provisions both of the original Act and of this Bill are well known and understood.
Under the Ribbon Development Act, 1935, by Sections 1 and 2, highway authorities—that is to say, county councils, borough councils and urban district councils—were given power to refuse to allow development within 220 feet of the middle of roads which were classified in 1935 and which have been classified since then and of certain other roads which were brought under the terms of the Act at the special request of these highway authorities. That provision has, in the view of my hon. Friends who have put down the Amendment, not been as effective as they could have desired. Indeed, since 1935 there has been more ribbon development in the country than the Government hoped, and than, I think, the House hoped, there would have been. I do not want to go into an explanation of why that has come about. I do not think it is because the highway authorities have shown any reluctance to operate the Act in the spirit which Parliament intended. There have been financial difficulties. Very often questions of compensation arise and the highway authorities certainly have not the financial resources to permit them to insist on the developments being prevented. Unfortunately, as I think, Parliament did not then, and has not since, made provision for assisting the highway authorities in such circumstances.
In any case, those who have to operate the Act have been in the greatest difficulty since the war began. The Act gives them no power to grant leave for develop-

ment within 220 feet of the middle of the road on condition or subject to the term that it shall be demolished at the end of the war. They have been constantly faced by demands from people who want to develop within these strips along the roadside for purposes connected with the promotion of the war effort. Everybody knows that along these roads there were in many cases factories already built before the Act of 1935 was passed. It was not suggested that those factories should be pulled down. It is now frequently desired, in the interests of the war effort, that such factories should be extended. Sometimes it is desirable that new access to those factories should be allowed, a new road made from the main road to the factory itself, a new factory put up, or hutments provided for housing workers. Every time such a proposal arises the authority is faced with the question, "Shall we refuse the development, and thereby impede the war effort, perhaps seriously, or shall we grant the development, knowing that we have no power to make it temporary, and thereby accept the fact that the development will be a defacement of the road and a potential cause of obstruction on the roads, perhaps for a generation to come?"
A number of authorities have tried to give temporary consents. They have made an arrangement with the developer that the building, the fence, the road, or whatever it may be, shall be taken down again at the end of the war. It is extremely doubtful whether they have any power to do that, and I think, indeed, that the right view is that the Courts would not uphold them if they tried to exercise the right to demolish after the war, but would, on the contrary, uphold the developer if he claimed that his building should remain. Very often the authorities are faced with a greater difficulty than that. The developer begins without asking consent. He is under pressure from an important Government Department, which wants production. The wheels go round: is the authority to stop them? Sometimes the developer asks the authority for permission; the authority refuses, and the developer goes on all the same. Sometimes the developer goes ahead without asking at all. I will read a letter which my Ministry received from the Secretary of the County Councils Association last August:


The attention of the War Emergency Committee of the County Councils Association has been drawn to cases in which private firms engaged on war work have erected buildings or laid out means of access on land subject to restrictions under the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, 1935. Sometimes the consent of the county council, as highway authority, is sought, but on other occasions the provisions of the Act are completely ignored, and in both cases the council are placed in an extremely difficult position. On the one hand, they are liable, if the works are such as would normally be sanctioned and powers conferred by Section II of the Act are exercised, to a charge of hindering vital production. On the other hand, if no action is taken, the offence is condoned.
In any case the authority must be in a difficult position. Sometimes, as I have said, it has granted a temporary consent, which is ultra vires; sometimes it has refused, and the man has gone on. Sometimes it has refused, and has been charged with holding up the war effort. We cannot assume, as many of those who take a strong view about ribbon development are inclined to assume, that it is wrong to allow the development to go on. If may be a vital war requirement. I have particulars of a case, raised by, I think, the Worcestershire County Council, concerning a factory making aeroplane parts, where everything was suitable, the transport ready, the raw materials there, and other processes close by. If consent were refused it would set back production very much. On the other hand, if consent were given the county council must accept criticism for allowing a defacement which has no term, which, as I have said, may last for a generation. Many representations have been made to my Ministry from a number of county councils, as well as from the County Councils Association, and to our divisional road engineers, who have to administer the matter. This Bill is an attempt to get rid of that difficulty by allowing in effect, although it is not quite the form, a temporary consent.
Clause 1, Sub-section (4) deals with past cases in which councils have endeavoured to give a temporary consent, by providing that such consent shall be regarded as if it had been given under the terms of this Measure and that the right of demolition shall be there when the end of the war comes. It deals with future cases by saying that the highway authorities can give temporary consent and retain the right to go to court and ask for demolition at the end of the war. Under this Measure they would then win, and

the builing would come down. Clause 2 is to meet a doubt which has arisen, not iu practice but in Departmental discussions, about the meaning of Clause it of the original Act. Under that Clause, appeal can be made to a court of sumary jurisdiction. Everybody assumed that it was within the power of the Court to determine only whether there has been violation of the Act of 1935, and not what executive action should be taken and whether demolition should be proceeded with or not. The executive action was assumed to remain in the hands of the highway authority. The House will agree, I think, that that, as a matter of administration, is eminently right. The point has not yet risen in practice, but it has now been suggested that perhaps the court, under the original Act, would have to decide both the point of legality and what executive action should be taken as a result of the legal decision. Clause 2 of this Bill is, in form, an amendment of the original Act. In reality, it is, I think, only a clarification of it, and I hope that the House will accept it as such and agree that it is right and proper.
I come to the Amendment which has been put down by my hon. Friends. I have no grievance against them for putting it down; on the contrary, I am very grateful to them. It deals with important points which ought to be cleared up, and I hope that I shall be able to clarify them to the satisfaction of my hon. Friends. They know that my feeling about the evils of ribbon development is quite as strong as theirs, and I assure them that my Ministry accepts the view that ribbon development as such is most undesirable, and that we should make our Measures to prevent it as effective as we can. In the Amendment three points are raised. The first is, should this be done at all by the Ministry of War Transport: why is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport introducing this Bill, and not the Minister of Town and Country Planning? The answer is that the original Act was my Ministry's Act, that this is an Amendment of my Ministry's Act, for purposes that my Ministry has to administer under the legislation which now exists. The Ministry of Town and Country Planning has been consulted at every stage and is in full agreement with the course we are taking.
But, whatever is done about Town and Country Planning, my Ministry must


retain an interest in the planning of roads. There was a planning authority in 1935 in the Ministry of Health, and there were local planning authorities around the country. Why was the 1935 Bill brought in by the Ministry of Transport, and why was it administered, not by the planning authorities in the country but by the highway authorities? It was because the points with which the Bill dealt were of importance to the movement of traffic. We have not yet made any pronouncement about post-war traffic policy, but it is a commonplace among those who are interested that traffic on the roads is going to extend greatly when the war is over. We shall have to have big road developments of one kind and another in the course of two or three decades following the war, and perhaps more quickly than that. If roads are built up by ribbon development obviously at once they become much less effective as arterial through roads for motor traffic. Similarly, if there is a right of access and anybody can come into the road at any point, again that creates a very grave danger of accidents on the road. Therefore, both in the discharge of its duty to facilitate the movement of traffic and to promote safety on the roads, my Ministry must be concerned with planning in the sense of the allocation of the road and in respect of what is done on the surface alongside when the road is built.

Mr. Molson: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary for a plain answer to this question? No one disputes that the Ministry of War Transport must be concerned about ribbon development, but is it the intention that the responsibility for the administration of ribbon development legislation shall remain permanently in the hands of his Department?

Mr. Noel-Baker: That is a question which it is not very easy for me to answer at short notice—the full powers of the Minister of Town and Country Planning and all he is going to do have not yet been determined—but I can say that I think my Ministry will have to retain responsibility, and in this question of planning and administration, I do not see how the thing could be administered really without the intervention of the Divisional Road Engineers who act for my Noble Friend throughout the country.

In one way or another that must happen, but I would recall to my hon. Friend that there have been, as I have already said, planning authorities since 1935. They work in the closest possible harmony with the highway authorities. We have, I suppose, altogether hundreds of appeals under the Ribbon Development Act and under the Town and Country Planning Act, some of which come in the first instance to my Minister and some in the first instance to the Minister of Health. On no occasion has there ever been a difference of opinion either locally between the planning authority and the highway authority or between my Minister and the Minister of Health. Therefore, I hope that the House will see that, whatever may be the powers and competence of my Ministry in the matter in future, it will work with the planning authority in the future as it has done in the past. I hope my hon. Friends will see that, in introducing this Bill from the Ministry of War Transport, I am not doing anything improper or which encroaches upon the sphere of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Town and Country Planning or anything indeed that could have been done better in some other way.
I come, secondly, to the objection in the Motion that it reduces the safeguards against ribbon development now while the war is on. With great respect, I think that that is not the practical effect. If I have explained the Bill properly—as I hope I have—I should have made it plain that when the highway authorities are faced with this dilemma, "Shall we impede the war effort or shall we allow what in normal times we should regard as undesirable development?" they are very often forced to make a decision to allow development and that development is then carried out. We hope under this Bill we shall not only get rid of the buildings put up in a false, temporary sense—a temporary sense given ultra vires—but we shall also get rid of buildings which will be put up from now onwards to which consent in any case would be given but which would be permanent unless this Bill were passed.
I come, thirdly, to the objection that there is no guarantee in the Bill that buildings put up or other obstructions allowed will be demolished or removed after the war is over. My hon. Friends might argue with great force that, if there


is a factory giving employment or if there is a building with a high rateable value, it might be very difficult for a highway authority to overcome the public opinion of the district and to remove that building. I do not believe that there is a danger that highway authorities will fail to exercise their rights when the war is over if now they give a temporary consent. Let the House observe that if a consent is given under this Bill, it will be by authorities who take their duties under the Act of 1935, or will under this Bill when it becomes an Act, so seriously that they have actually refused the permanent consent. No doubt in the first place the developer will ask for permanent consent, and that will be refused. The authority who has to make the decision after the war will have made it perfectly plain that it regards this as undesirable as a permanent feature and therefore will have to disavow itself after the war is over if it allows a building to remain. Secondly, I would say in this respect that the experience of the working of the 1935 Act does not indicate that we need expect such an attitude from these authorities. Those who have greatest experience in the matter—and my advisers are all unanimous on this point—feel that there is really no doubt that the authorities will insist on cleaning up afterwards whatever defacement has been temporarily allowed. I have spoken of our road policy. I believe development to be essential. We shall certainly bring great pressure to secure the removal of obstructions which have been temporarily allowed by my Ministry, and I feel absolutely confident that the Minister of Town and Country Planning will do the same. I hope, therefore, that there is no real danger in the third objection which appears in the Amendment of my hon. Friends.
I will end by summarising the effect of the Bill as follows: We shall, I hope, enable these authorities, who are now in a very difficult position, to escape the dilemma with which they are faced. We shall ensure that we shall get rid of the obstructions and buildings they have allowed under conditions which are not valid in a court of law. We shall ensure that any new obstructions to which consent would not in any case be given shall disappear, and we shall harmonise the present war interests of the nation with the long-term interests when there will be

proper planning and development. I hope that with this explanation the House will accept the Bill and that my hon. Friends will agree that it will achieve the purpose that they have in view, for indeed it is to achieve that purpose that we have brought the Bill in.

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill introduced by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport which affects the responsibilities of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, reduces for the duration of the war the safeguards against ribbon development which has proved dangerous to life, obstructive to traffic, burdensome to the ratepayers and destructive of amenities; and provides no adequate guarantee that such ribbon development will be removed after the war.
I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for the very full explanation he has given of the reasons which have induced the Government to introduce this Bill. I need hardly say that, if in the view of my hon. Friends and myself the case is fully made out that legislation of this kind is necessary to promote the war effort, we shall not push our opposition to any unreasonable extent. I am glad that my hon. Friend admits that the points that we have raised are of some substance, and I propose to deal with them briefly one after the other. I am rather concerned that the Ministry of War Transport is obviously intending to retain after the war the responsibility for the administration of legislation against ribbon development.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I did not mean to say that. I said that we must have an interest in that concern and must cooperate with whatever Ministry is doing it.

Mr. Molson: I am very glad indeed to hear that. It is obvious that the Ministry of Transport must always be concerned with anything which is going to promote the development of the roads and their administration on lines which would be beneficial to traffic. But my hon. Friend emphasised the point that when the original Bill was passed in 1935 it was the Ministry of Transport that was made responsible for its administration and not the local authorities, which at that time were the only bodies in the country


directly concerned with planning. The whole matter has now undergone a great change, because under the new legislation it is intended that planning of the country shall be on a national scale. I cannot understand how it is possible for the Minister of Town and Country Planning to discharge his responsibilities unless he also is going to be the Minister primarily responsible for ribbon development. It is obvious that in all matters affecting transport he would act in the closest touch with the Minister of Transport, but ribbon development is just as much a matter of concern to those who are concerned with the location of industry, with housing, and with the preservation of amenities as with the conveyance of traffic on the roads. Therefore, my hon. Friends and I thought it only right to take this first opportunity of making it plain that in our view the Minister of Town and Country Planning will be unreasonably handicapped in the discharge of his responsibility unless he becomes the Minister primarily responsible, although no doubt in all matters he will act in the closest touch and in accordance with the views of the Minister of Transport.
It is a little curious that it should only be necessary at the end of the fourth year of the war for this legislation to be introduced, and in order to justify that we are now told that in many respects the local highway authorities have found themselves obliged to enter into arrangements with those who wish to undertake ribbon development, which was not in accordance with the powers which they had under existing legislation and which would therefore be unenforceable. It is never entirely satisfactory to be told that the purpose of a Bill before the House is merely to regularise irregularities committed in the past. In the third place, I want to ask whether my hon. Friend is fully satisfied that ribbon development is really necessary for the war effort. The whole of the cause of ribbon development in the past has been that from the point of view of certain individuals and certain interests ribbon development has been the line of least resistance. If that was so in peace-time, it is obviously equally so in war-time. Unless a case can be made out that it would be almost impossible to provide factories or camps, or housing, or whatever it may be, away from the roads,

we ought not even in war-time lightheartedly to legalise ribbon development.
In the fourth place, I would ask what likelihood there is that these buildings are going to be removed at the end of the war. My hon. Friend, in justifying this Bill, said that there were cases where factories were being extended and other cases where new factories were being built. It is quite true, as I understand it, that under this Bill, when the war comes to an end—that is, when an Order in Council states that the war has come to an end—it would then be possible for the highway authority to call upon the persons who have erected these factories to demolish them. It is, however, a very usual thing for us to be asked in this House to legislate and for something to appear all right in the Bill, and then when one comes to look at it one realises that in fact it would be impossible to give effect to it. If it is indeed the case that large, expensive factories of a permanent character are now being built along the sides of the roads, is it really the case that the people who are erecting these factories are fully aware of the fact that at the end of the war they will be required to demolish these comparatively new and costly buildings?
Shall we not then be confronted perhaps with some new Bill and be asked to take the view that those who have erected new and valuable factories during the war should not be required after the war to demolish them? I feel that if there had been in this Bill some special provisions providing that only temporary buildings should be erected, the outlook for the future would be much less disquieting than it is. I am not fully satisfied with the explanations that have been given. I feel that the House is being asked under cover of some alleged war necessity to depart from the policy which it adopted in 1935, and I am not greatly impressed by one of the arguments put forward that the Act of 1935 had not worked very well. Even if the Act of 1935 did not go as far as it should have done, that seems no adequate ground for driving a coach and four through what protection the Act of 1935 did give.

Mr. Noel-Baker: The point of my observation was that I thought it could not be laid to the charge of the highway authorities that more direct results have not been obtained from the Act of 1935. They have not shown a lack of willingness to operate the Act.

Mr. Molson: I hope the Government will at any rate be prepared to consider with an open mind any Amendments which my hon. Friends or myself may put down at a later stage in order to make certain that this Bill will not result in the permanence of more ribbon development.

Major York: I beg to second the Amendment.
I would like very briefly to emphasise what my hon. Friend has said on two points. The first point is that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said that the powers which the Minister exercised would be exercised in close consultation with the Minister of Town and Country Planning. I do not feel that that is in itself a sufficient guarantee. The Minister of Town and Country Planning is at the present time, we hope, working out the major key outlines of a plan for the whole country. I feel that it is his responsibility and not the responsibility of the Minister of War Transport. Roads and other matters connected with communication should be dealt with directly by the Minister of Town and Country Planning. As my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) said, the location of industry is the direct concern of the Minister of Town and Country Planning. If I understood correctly the remark of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, he said that the actual location of roads was really his responsibility. That is not a view which I and my hon. Friends can accept.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I did not mean to say that. I said the Minister of War Transport must have an interest in it and must obviously participate in any decision about the location of roads.

Major York: I am glad to have that correction. It does mean that the Minister of Town and Country Planning has to plan the roads and, acting on advice from the Minister of War Transport, to plan egress and exits from those roads. The Parliamentary Secretary skated too lightly over the subject of what can be undone after the war. We all know of many buildings of a temporary, war-time character which were built in the last war and which are still standing and still being used to-day. We all know that if bad planning is put in force at the present time, that bad planning will be the most difficult thing of all to get rid of when the Minister of Town

and Country Planning comes to work out his real solution after the war. The Parliamentary Secretary did say that the authorities would insist upon clearing up, the mess. But can they insist if the people of the locality ask that these factories and housing estates and hutments should remain for a time?
Again, aerodromes are covering many parts of the country, and each aerodrome has its huts by the roadside. How can we ensure under this Bill that highway authorities can get rid of them? What is done is done, and the Minister will have great difficulty in clearing up what is done. As I see it, under this Bill he is going to allow certain buildings to go up which may be outside the scope of the interim development plan which the local planning authority have already got in view. If I have got this wrong, I shall be glad to stand corrected. Perhaps the Minister of Town and Country Planning will explain that matter later. The assurances given by the Parliamentary Secretary are not entirely satisfactory, and I hope that the opinions which are expressed in this Debate will show that there is in the House a general view that the Minister is doing something which may cause very great difficulties in the post-war period.

Sir Richard Acland: I object to this Bill for different reasons from those advanced by the hon. Member opposite. My objection is very much increased by the statement that the Bill, is introduced with the complete consent of the Minister of Town and Country Planning. This Bill reveals an appalling prospect. Why not repeal the Ribbon Development Act? That would be a much simpler and much cleaner job. That Act has been a failure in operation. It has not prevented ribbon development. It has driven development back 7o yards from the middle of the road—which often is only 5o yards from the edges of the road—which means that the landlord has been deprived of 5o yards of his land. It has sometimes made the landlord put in a bit of carriage way where otherwise he would have put an entrance to each house. The Parliamentary Secretary has himself said that on many occasions local authorities were unable to prevent undesirable development because they could not afford to finance the compensation. Why not then repeal the Act and admit its complete failure?


After all, no development is physically possible to-day unless a Ministry—not always the same Ministry, but some Ministry or other—has given the necessary facilities so that material and labour are available for building. Either the War Office or the Admiralty or one or other of our Ministries must have sanctioned any development before it can take place. There cannot be a development at this moment which is the private venture of an individual. The very fact that the development becomes physically possible means that some Ministry has decided that this development is important for the war effort. This thing having been decided by a Ministry, it now has to go to a sub-committee of the county council—the highway authority usually is a sub-committee of the county council—which has to sit in judgment on the War Office and Admiralty.

Mr. Noel-Baker: That is the system set up by the Act of 1935, which we are not proposing to change.

Sir R. Acland: Yes, but I say, Why not take the simple course of repealing the Ribbon Development Act in toto? When a Ministry has sanctioned the material for a structural development, it means that a Ministry concerned in the war effort thinks it important. That really means that as far as planning and development are concerned we are going back to the conditions prevalent in the days before the war. It means that you are afraid of making a clean job of it by repealing the Act of 1935 and that you are contemplating coming to the end of this war without having put through any comprehensive scheme to lift the whole business of planning and development of our towns and countryside and transport out of the whole sordid struggle between private enterprise, Ministries, local authorities, planning authorities, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, local ratepayers' associations, societies for the preservation of rural Britain, and the rest of the organisations in which this whole subject was tied up and entangled before the war. If you are to lift it right out of that level and put it on the level at which the planning and development of our country is in the hands of the men who think only of the public interest and not of private landlords, then you have to make this tinker-

ing amendment. But if you are to do anything in a big way and you are to make up your minds that landowners are not to be allowed to profit out of the development of our country by either holding up or pressing forward something in their own interests and not in the interests of the community, I do not see why you do not repeal the Ribbon Development Act straight out.
The point has been made: Is there any likelihood of buildings permitted by this Bill being removed after the war? I entirely agree with the last speaker that if we go on as we are, if private individuals are to be allowed to argue, "I spent my money on extending my factory. Are you now intending to force me to pull it down?" there is not the slightest prospect of any factory development which is permitted under this Bill being removed when the war is over. But if anyone is getting worried about a little point like that, it seems to me that he is not thinking in terms of replanning and rebuilding this country. When I have spoken at Manchester about post-war needs and have said that nine-tenths of that city ought to be pulled down, it has proved one of the most popular things one could say in a speech about post-war reconstruction. The same can be said in Liverpool, Edinburgh and Glasgow Of those places and in other large cities.

Mr. Molson: The hon. Member's threat to knock these towns down has not enabled him to win any by-elections in them.

Sir R. Acland: In some country constituencies we are a little more fortunate, but there is quite as much work to be done in some villages as there is in the heart of Manchester. If you are thinking of the problem on that scale, that something like nine-tenths of our industrial cities want pulling down, why bother about a factory here and there which has been allowed to encroach on roads? There will be much more to bother about if you are really intending to replan this country. The Minister of War Transport and the Ministry of Town and Country Planning ought to know better, for this Bill reveals a deplorable attitude towards planning for the future. Why anyone should have thought it necessary at this time to come along with this little niggling amendment to an Act which has been a


failure instead of saying, "Let us repeal the Ribbon Development Act," I cannot understand. I cannot seriously hope that this Bill will be passed.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: I would not have intervened in this discussion had it not been for the concluding remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary, because I have looked upon the Ribbon Development Act, 1935, as a most inadequate Act of Parliament. Therefore, I support my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson), although probably not only for the reasons he has given. At the time when the 1935 Bill was passed we had not taken a sufficiently broad view of the position. What has happened? We have spent many millions of pounds on what are known as arterial roads, which were intended to ease motor traffic from more congested areas. They have not succeeded, because expansion of motor vehicle traffic between 1925 and the commencement of this war has been so great that the increase has gone on to the arterial, and the roads that existed prior to the passing of that Bill are still as heavily congested. I feel I am justified in suggesting that the Ministry of War Transport should review the present position. While I do not think that in submitting this Bill to make an adequate amendment of the Act of 1935 the Ministry have on this occasion been as absent of vision as they were in 1935, what they should say to the House is, "We want motor highways." In 1935, when I wrote a book on the rebuilding of Britain, I advocated that the whole country should be replanned so far as main arterial roads were concerned and that that should form the skeleton into which future development should take place.

Mr. Montague: Leave us a few country lanes.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: We are in the same position regarding the development of highways as we were seven years ago, and while the Minister may not be able to do it on this Bill, I would ask for an assurance that the Department will give considerations to proposals for motor highways on which no development will be allowed and to which no approaches will be allowed. I can see that another branch of the Department which has to do with railways will throw up their hands in horror at this suggestion, but if we are

to have an orderly, planned Britain when the war is over, then railways, highways and airways must synchronise through the whole system of transport. The Ministry should give consideration to the question of presenting to the House a comprehensive scheme for motor highways which will be under their jurisdiction while the rest of the skeleton is left under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Henry Strauss): I think I ought to intervene to explain one or two points which otherwise might trouble my hon. Friends who have put their names to an Amendment prompted by sentiments with which, I need hardly say, I have the greatest sympathy. I do riot think that even the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland) himself has been ruder on the subject of ribbon development than I have been in this House for many years, and if this Bill were a Bill for the encouragement of such development, I can assure him that my name would never appear in support of it, nor would my right hon. Friend the Minister have agreed to it. The fact is that there are two codes affecting development and two lots of consents that have to be obtained, the consent under the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, 1935, a consent which concerns highway authorities and the Ministry of War Transport, and consent under the Town and Country Planning legislation. The hon. Member for Barnstaple may be right in thinking that in the future, under a comprehensive code, we may be able to abolish or mitigate the difficulty of overlapping codes of that kind, but the immediate question is how to set in order the practical problem that has arisen in the administration of the Ribbon Development Act. That is a matter which has been dealt with by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport, who will, if necessary, speak again, by leave of the House, to deal with any points that may arise. The sole object of my intervention is to try to reassure my hon. Friends who have taken such great interest in town and country planning legislation, and who are very anxious that a matter, about which they rightly feel such concern, shall not be prejudiced by any new Bill which is introduced into this House.
If I can keep in Order in doing so—and I think I can—I want to remind them of the provisions of another Bill now before Parliament which have some bearing on this problem. Under that Bill, which has passed through this House, we have taken power as a Planning Ministry to give temporary consents under town and country planning legislation. That is very much what is being done mutatis mutandis under the other code by the present Bill. We have also taken very stringent powers under another Clause of that Bill, Clause 5, for the removal of undesirable development which takes place after the passing of the Act otherwise than in accordance with interim development consents. Therefore, the main fear in my hon. Friends' minds, namely, that for the removal after the war of new buildings that may be erected hereafter they may be dependent on the wish of the highway authority, is not well grounded. When the legislation we have introduced has become law the Ministry will have power to deal with any such new development which is not in accordance with the consent of the planning authority. I believe that in this very complicated legislation that point may possibly have escaped the notice of some of my hon. Friends, and to that extent what I have said may be reassuring. The matter is one of great complexity, but at present, while the Minister of War Transport and my Ministry act in the closest consultation in these matters, it still remains necessary that consent under each of these separate codes has to be given even where the highway authority and the planning authority are the same authority, as happens, for example, in county boroughs. We are taking power both to give temporary consents and to remove development which is not in accordance with the planning consent which has been given. My hon. Friend by this Bill is seeking to do something very similar, mutatis mutandis, in the code which his Ministry has to administer.
On the merits of the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, it is obviously not right that I should intervene. That is a matter for my hon. Friend. The sole object of my intervention is to explain, as far as possible, that my hon. Friends, for whose motives and vigilance I am grateful, need have no such fear as has

been expressed in one or two of the speeches that have been made. It would have been possible under planning legislation to stop all ribbon development everywhere. I need not say that that has not happened. Under the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act it is possible to stop some ribbon development. Nevertheless, that Act has certain advantages. There are Treasury grants which it attracts and there are, and always have been, cogent reasons against the simple transfer of the powers under that Act from the Ministry of War Transport to my Ministry. But I want to make it absolutely clear that this Bill, and the fact that my Ministry is backing it, does not imply for a moment that we mean to compromise at all in dealing with the evil of ribbon development. On the contrary, that evil can scarcely be exaggerated. I once said in this House that, while buildings of poor design were bad, and buildings in the wrong place were bad, worst of all was the ingenious method by which we had combined those two evils in ribbon development, whereby we have been destroying the beauty of England, not slowly or gradually, but as by a raging pestilence. There is nothing to be said for it. This Bill does not mean that the Government take any other view. The case for it is that which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport has made. In administering his code this Bill is required. It does not in any way prejudice the code that we administer. It would be wrong for me to adumbrate future legislation, but, as regards the present legislation, there is no objection to it on the grounds adumbrated in the Amendment and there is no reason in the opinion of my right hon. Friend for any hesitation in giving it a Second Reading.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: I think if anyone doubted whether the Amendment was worth while, his doubt will have been removed by the speech to which we have just listened. It is surely of the utmost importance that we should be reassured at this time that the Ministry of Town and Country Planning is immensely interested in this problem and is indeed in earnest in the determination to deal with the evils of ribbon development, and is throughout animated by the whole outlook to which such generous expression has


been given in the Parliamentary Secretary's concluding words. But I think we may ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport to give expression in the terms of this Bill to the assurance that we have just had. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning sought to allay our anxieties as to the possible failure of local authorities to get rid of undesirable buildings when the war emergency is passed by telling us that there is legislation before Parliament, which has passed beyond the control of the House, which will give the Ministry power to deal with these cases, but we are not justified in assuming that a measure which has passed beyond our power will ever become law. It is conceivable that it may be modified or may disappear. We may never hear any more about it. The least we should do, surely, is to see that in this Bill there is provision for similar power to be secured for the Ministry.

Mr. Henry Strauss: I think the hon. Member will find that the Bill which he says has passed beyond the power of the House will necessarily come back to the House and will, in fact, become law, I should say as an intelligent guess, at an earlier elate than the Bill we are now considering.

Mr. Harvey: I am glad to know that, but we are not supposed to know what goes, on in another place. We might rightly have assumed that another place might decide very differently. But at least, when there are so many otiose words in Bills which have to be considered, it ought not to be considered otiose to emphasise the importance which the House places on this issue by securing in the text of the Bill that the Minister of Town and Country Planning, in conjunction with the Minister of War Transport, should have power to deal with this grave abuse. On all sides anxiety has been expressed as to the need for drastic and far-sighted action. Both town and country have been spoilt. We think of the medieval town, with its walls and its beautiful approach, and contrast it with the town of to-day. The town is made hideous by ribbon development and the long approach of factory and slum before you get to the more worthy civic buildings, and at the same time the country is defiled. Parliament ought to make it clear that at every stage, whenever we

have the opportunity of dealing with even one aspect of the problem, we are determined to do our utmost to save the countryside from defilement and to preserve what we can of what is left of the beauty of the towns.

Mr. Reakes: I rise to support the Bill. I have been convinced by the admirable statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport. I believe he is quite honest in his objection to the fears arising out of the failure of the Ribbon Development Bill to preserve our countryside. But, assuming that we followed the suggestion of the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland) and got rid of the Ribbon Development Bill, that would make no difference whatever. The Government would still be faced with Government Departments and private concerns building war factories, and we should also find that they would inevitably be built in close proximity to arterial roads. No one would dream of doing otherwise. Therefore it is Hobson's choice. We have to put up with the erection of these structures because there is no alternative. We are bound to agree to it in order to make sure that we get 100 per cent, war effort. It is the worst possible thing for anyone to be able to put up a structure in defiance of the local authority. It has been done probably for the most laudable reason, because production is so urgent. So that I think the Bill is very wise because it does away with big concerns, whether Government concerns or private companies, putting up structures in defiance of local authority. It is far better to give them temporary permission to do so than to leave matters as they are.
I do not believe we are going to find it so difficult to get these structures demolished at the end of the war. I have faith in the Town and Country Planning Bill that it will take notice of the feeling of the House that we axe nearly all agreed in removing these structures in the shortest possible time. The county authorities will have power to deal with these things. There are such things as Parliamentary Bills promoted by municipal county boroughs and other authorities to get rid of unauthorised erections and unsightly structures, and there are many avenues by which we can get back to a beautified countryside in the post-war period. It is altogether wrong


to obstruct the Bill by dragging in matters which are not germane to the issue, I am satisfied that it is the right and proper thing to agree to the Bill, if only to make it impossible in the future for anyone to put up a factory in defiance of a Government Department or local authority. The Bill regularises the thing, and it is a war-time Measure. If it was going to be a thing for all time, I should hotly oppose it, but we must be reasonable and help the Department in the matter. I am a little confused as to why this matter was not brought forward by the Town and Country Planning Department rather than the Ministry of Transport. However, it is a matter of importance and I hope the Bill will have the desired effect.

Mr. Hutchinson: Like the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. Harvey), I feel that the House ought to be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) for bringing forward this Amendment, which has given us an opportunity of discussing the relations between the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Town and Country Planning in the control and planning of our road system. I am not so critical of the Bill as my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment. The speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning has to a large extent disposed of the apprehensions which he felt that the result of the Bill would be to interfere with the requirements of planning for which my hon. Friend is responsible. It is, of course, a complete safeguard that planning control will be required for any form of development which may take place whether in areas adjacent to trunk roads or not. I would remind the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland) who was very critical of the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act of a fact which he appears to overlook, namely, that this Act was passed in 1935. At that time there were large areas which were not subject to any planning control at all. That is not the situation at present. Before long, when legislation which was initiated recently becomes law, the whole area of the country will become subject to planning control. The consent of the planning authorities will then be required, in the way in which the Parliamentary

Secretary has described, for any form of development whether in areas adjoining trunk roads or anywhere else.
To that extent the planning importance of the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act has been exhausted. Its importance to-day is not as a piece of planning legislation but rather as a piece of transport legislation. One of the objects of the Act of 1935, which ought not to be overlooked, was to prevent interference with main traffic which resulted from numerous points of access to the main roads. I do not feel, as some hon. Members apparently do, any great apprehension that the buildings which have been erected or which are to be erected along the main roads for the purposes of the war will not be removed if it is desirable to remove them either under planning powers or under the powers of this Bill. These buildings will not interfere with planning very much. If a factory is already sited within the prescribed distance from the centre of a trunk road considerations of planning and the amenities of the countryside have presumably already been taken into account. The factory is already part of the planned area of the district. The only question is whether it should have unrestricted access to the road. If the Parliamentary Secretary were to follow the course suggested by the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple and repeal the whole Act the result would be to put the various Government Departments responsible for sanctioning the erection of these buildings in precisely the same difficulties in which the local authorities now are, that is to say, they would not be able to give a temporary consent, but would be compelled either to stop the erection of the building altogether or allow complete unrestricted access to the roads. That the advantage which this Bill seeks to give the local authorities is that it will make it possible for the time being for them to allow persons who desire to do so to have temporary access to the road upon the condition that when the period of emergency is over the temporary access can be stopped up.
There is one aspect of this matter to which the House clearly attaches importance. The House wants to know what is to be the future relationship between the Ministry of Town and Country Planning and the Ministry of War Transport with regard to the planning of the


post-war road system. That is a question about which the House feels a good deal of concern and I was glad that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, although he was careful to point out that his Department must have an interest both in the planning and in the administration of post-war roads, did not apparently claim that the planning of the post-war road system should be undertaken by his Department. I cannot see how the Minister of Town and Country Planning is to discharge his functions of making proper plans for the different areas in which, I suppose, the country is to be divided unless he is given full power to plan the siting of the post-war road system. Whatever the conditions may be after the war, one thing at least is plain, that the method of road planning which was followed before the war will not serve the purposes of the post-war world.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member, in arguing about the post-war world, is going rather beyond this Bill.

Mr. Hutchinson: I will endeavour not to go beyond what is proper for consideration under this Bill. I hope that I shall not transgress your Ruling by saying that unless the Minister of Town and Country Planning is given full powers to plan for the main road communications of the country I cannot see how he is to discharge his planning functions in an adequate manner.
I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary referred to Clause 2 of this Bill because it is a part of the Bill which has hitherto escaped attention during this Debate. I do not agree with him that the position which is sought to be established by this Clause is as satisfactory as he would have us suppose. Section 11 of the orginal Act was, as he said, not altogether satisfactory. It provided that if a person established access to a main road contrary to the restrictions imposed by the local authority the local authority might do one of two things. They might prosecute that person, and if they succeeded in getting a conviction they might re-establish the status quo as it was before the improper access was made; or, if they chose, they might serve notice upon the person that they intended to close the access or to remove the building and so re-establish the status quo and within

28 days that person, if he was aggrieved, then had the right to go to a court of summary jurisdiction and make an appeal. Under that procedure, if the local authority stopped up the access and served a notice it was open to the court of summary jurisdiction to decide not only whether the access infringed the restriction, but the wider question of whether access should have been restricted at all, Therefore, there was a general appeal against the decision of the local authority not to permit the access
That was an important right. It is always a desirable thing that when an administrative authority has power to make certain decisions which affect the rights of individuals very materially there should be some right of appeal against their decision. That right existed under Section 11. By this Amendment my hon. Friend proposes to take it away. But in any event an appeal against the local authority's decision to a court of summary jurisdiction is not a desirable form of appeal. I accordingly invite the Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider the whole position under Section 11 of the principal Act from these two points of view—first, whether there ought not to be some right of appeal against the decision of the local authority to refuse a night of access in an individual case; and, secondly, whether it is desirable that an appeal of that sort should go to a court of summary jurisdiction. Such a court is not a tribunal which is well suited to determine appeals from an administrative authority. If the appeal went to the Minister that would be more satisfactory.
I recognise that this matter is bound up with the right of local authorities to prosecute a person who opens an improper access, but I would ask my hon. Friend to consider whether it is really necessary to make that a criminal matter, or whether it would not be sufficient if the local authorities had the right to close up the access or to remove the offending building and recover the cost of doing so as a civil debt. There has been a tendency in modern legislation to make all sorts of trivial things into criminal offences. It is a bad tendency and one which we ought to check. What we desire to do is to ensure that if an access has been improperly opened or a building improperly erected that access cats be closed or that building removed


without the necessity of having to go to the police court in order to impose a small and often completely ineffective fine. I invite my hon. Friend not merely to amend Section II but to take back the whole Section and see whether he cannot produce one which is more suitable to his purpose.
I think that this is really a useful Bill, and that the criticisms which have been directed against it have not much substance when they are examined. For these reasons I hope the House will give it a Second Reading; but I also hope that my hon. Friend who will be concerned with this matter in the future will give very serious consideration to the major question, about which we are all concerned, of whose is to be the responsibility for road planning in the future.

Mr. Goldie: I only entered the Chamber while the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland) was making his emphatic protest against this proposed Bill. I personally pay such sincere regard to anything, the hon. Baronet should oppose in or out of the House that I should like to associate myself with his protest, but on rather different grounds. I am in favour of the Bill, but out of respect to the hon. Baronet, having arrived only in the course of his protest, I felt it my duty to ask myself what this Bill was about, and having read with some care and some little legal knowledge the four sheets placed in my hands, I can only say that I have never had placed before me in all the years I have been in this House a more absolutely unintelligible document. Everybody who has been here for years knows that to every Government Department a full stop is anathema. Looking at Sub-section (1), I say it is absolutely impossible for any practising lawyer, let alone my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who is such a loss to the Temple at the present moment, to say what on earth that Sub-section means unless he is prepared, which is rather difficult, to consult a huge law library. What is even worse, in Sub-section (4) we find these words:
The highway authority shall not be deemed to have given their consent under the said Sections one or two, but the provisions of the last foregoing Sub-section shall apply in relation to the building, excavation, means of access, or works in like manner as if a notice under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) of this

Section had been served by that authority with respect to the building, excavation, means of access, or works, in respect of which the application was made.
Think of the unfortunate practising barrister in the Temple who has to construe that. I have protested against this sort of thing before and shall continue to protest on every single occasion. Why cannot we have the Sub-sections put in a Schedule, so that a man will know what he is dealing with? My hon. and learned Friend said this was a matter of complexity, and I agree with him absolutely that it is a matter of the greatest possible complexity.

Mr. David Adams: I am glad to support the Amendment. I feel that the Bill is incorrectly named "Restriction of Ribbon Development." It ought to be "Encouragement of Ribbon Development." If the Measure had been restricted to buildings already erected up to the time of the passage of the Bill, one could have understood the reasons for its introduction, but when it proposes to give authority to all and sundry who may desire to engage in ribbon development to do so up to the end of the war, in defiance of the desires of local authorities, we are undoubtedly encouraging contractors and others to proceed upon lines which are contrary to the public interest. It has not been stated how the guarantee for the demolition of buildings later is to be honoured. Probably there will be many cases in which the proprietors of the new buildings will be incapable, for financial or other reasons, of fulfilling their obligations to demolish them at the end of the war, and then which authority is to supply the funds to do so? Is that burden to fall upon the local authority or not? Speaking with some knowledge of municipal activities, I say that local authorities ought to be protected in this respect. Is it really necessary in the interests of the war effort that further encouragement should be given to ribbon development? There is an abundance of evidence that it is not necessary. Those in authority have an abundance of power to declare where buildings shall be erected, and is it necessary to offend the sound principle of the prevention of ribbon building by giving it encouragement by this Measure? From the point of view of the liabilities created by those who violate this principle, I say that we had better reconsider this Measure and bring to an end at the


earliest moment any extension of ribbon development.

Mr. Noel-Baker: With your leave, Mr. Speaker, and the leave of the House I should like to say a few words in answer to some of the things which have been said. As was remarked by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson) in his very judicious speech, most of the points of difficulty which have been raised in the Debate were removed, I think, by the lucid explanations given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, and I hope those who felt anxiety under the three headings of the Amendment will feel that his speech, if not mine, has removed their doubts and that they will be able to support the Bill. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington (Mr. Goldie) complained just now, if I understood him, of the drafting of the Bill and complained in particular that we did not print in a Schedule the Sub-sections to which reference is made at the end of Sub-section (4) of Clause I. Those Sub-sections do not appear in a Schedule to the Bill because they appear in the Bill itself. They are, in fact, the first two Sub-sections of the Clause of which he was speaking.

Mr. Goldie: I am so sorry. I admit I made a mistake. What I really was thinking of was Section 11 of the principal Act. I am sorry I made the mistake.

Mr. Noel-Baker: That is a different point. I was about to deal with the point raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford about Section it of the original Act and Clause 2 of this Bill. I certainly will give the fullest consideration to all he said about that, and perhaps he can discuss it further in Committee. If he can suggest any useful Amendment, we will look at it in a benevolent spirit. I was not sure that he gave a complete account of the effect of Section 11. In fact, there is an appeal under Section ii of the original Act to my Minister in exactly the circumstances in which he desired there should be such an appeal. If a highway authority refuses a demand for access those interested in the development for which the demand is refused can appeal to my Minister. We have had such appeals and I have had to deal with a good many of them myself. The only circumstances in which there is

a reference to a court of summary jurisdiction is when it is claimed that the developer has violated the decision of the highway authority or the provisions of the Act by going ahead with development without reference to the highway authority and without having proper consent.

Mr. Hutchinson: I understood the Minister to say there was a right of appeal to his Minister under Section tr. I do not understand that that is so.

Mr. Noel-Baker: No, I am sorry, it is under Section 7. If my hon. and learned Friend cares to bring up the point in Committee, we will look at it again in the light of his observations, as we shall find them in Hansard. My hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson), who moved the Amendment in what I thought was a very temperate and helpful speech, said that any Minister who came to the House and explained that he wanted to validate acts which had been committed in the past which were of doubtful legal validity was in an unfortunate position. That is so, and if under Clause I, Sub-section (4) we were trying to put right things we had done ourselves I should feel that my Ministry would come in for some legitimate criticism. But that is not the situation. It is the highway authorities who administer this thing. People come to them saying, "We must, in the interests of the war, do this and that," for example, make an extension of our factory. The highway authorities have wanted to apply the Act of 1935 in the spirit as well as in the letter and they have replied, "We do not want you to do it, it is bad planning, but we will agree to it in order to promote the war effort if you will agree to pull down the extension at the end of the war." The point of putting in Subsection (4) of Clause I is that that arrangement may not be upheld in the court at the end of the war, and we want to make sure that it will be upheld, and that they will have the right to pull the building down. I hope that explains why that Sub-section is there and I hope the House will think it is a satisfactory explanation.
For the rest, some hon. Members have said that this Bill is not big enough or ambitious enough and have complained that it does not create a new planning system for dealing with road development. Of course it does not. I agree that it is most important that the House should


consider who is to plan the road system, and how it is to be done, and all that is now under consideration. The House will recognise that there cannot yet be a final and definite decision, because it is only a short time since the Ministry of Town and Country Planning was set up, and in my Ministry we have been' so busy operating the machinery of war that we have not really got clown to the problems of postwar reconsfruction, we have not got to the point at which we can see a complete system of what we want to do. I should, however, like to assure all my hon. Friends that we do think it of the highest importance that the machinery for planning roads should be completely coordinated with the general planning of the country as a whole; if there were any divorce between the two, or conflict of powers or conflict of interests, it would be disastrous; and I think that within a measurable time the Government will be able to tell the House what is proposes to do.
Secondly, and this is a similar complaint, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton (Mr. Craven-Ellis) complained that the Bill did not deal with the whole road problem, and that I had not talked about the creation of motorways and taken the powers required to make motorways to which none but vehicles of certain classes should have access. I agree with a great deal of what he said about motorways and with what he thinks about road development; but in the Bill we are dealing with the very limited and narrow problem of the dilemma which has faced highway authorities as a result of their operation of the Act of 1935. At the right time we shall have a lot to say about all these transport problems and the development of the highways, but now is not the time.
The next substantive point is the real anxiety of hon. Members as to whether buildings and developments allowed under the Bill will come down at the end of the war. I would ask them to consider a counter question, which is: If they were highway authorities, would they feel that they were justified in refusing the requisitions which are made for developments within 220 feet of the road? I do not believe they would. I do not believe that, with the urgency of war production, they could possibly commit themselves to

such a proposition. It very often happens that great economies in transport, materials, and labour, which are in very short supply, can be effected if you put a structure next to one which already exists, or use an existing wall or already existing transport. I do not think that my hon. Friends will answer my question with a definite "Yes." That being so it means that those authorities are in the dilemma which I have already described in the course of to-day's Debate.
We want to give the authorities a way out. We believe that if, under the pressure to which they are now subjected to permit developments which promote the war effort, they have hesitated and have refused to give consent which means permanent defacement, we think they may be relied upon at the end of the war to go to court and say that demolition must take place. That demolition, I understand, would be at the expense of the man who put up the building.
The hon. Member for the English Universities (Mr. E. Harvey) said he hoped we should put something in the Bill to show that our Ministry, or the Government as a whole, recognised the need for discretion in respect of planning for the country after the war. We recognise the great purpose embodied in the Town and Country Planning Act which Parliament recently passed, and we are prepared to put that into the terms of the Bill. If he will suggest a form of words, I shall be very ready to look at it. I am ready to look at any Amendment which would promote the purposes of the Bill. If the hon. Member will put an Amendment forward, I can promise very sympathetic consideration, although I can enter into no commitment beforehand.
I would end by assuring the House that, from the narrow transport point of view, my Ministry must desire to restrict ribbon development as much as possible. If it is a social or planning evil, it is also a transport evil of a serious kind, and it must be against our ministerial interest, as it always has been. If Parliament had given my Ministry greater powers, those powers would have been used in a bolder manner. I would say to the hon. Member for the English Universities that I hope and believe that my Ministry also shares the view of this House that the beauty and the amenities


of England have been debauched for long enough and that the time has come when measures must be taken to bring that debauchery to an end.

Mr. Molson: My hon. Friends and I are quite reassured by the speeches which have been made by the two Ministers, and I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for the next Sitting Day.—[Captain McEwen.]

POLISH NATIONALS (MILITARY SERVICE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain McEwen.]

Mr. Silverman: Some four or five weeks ago my hon. Friend the Member for East Middles-brough (Mr. A. Edwards) put a Question by private notice to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The position disclosed in the answer to the Question and in the answers to certain Supplementary Questions was so very unsatisfactory that many of us felt that an early opportunity ought to be taken to have the matter fully and perhaps finally cleared up. The Under-Secretary of State, who is apparently to reply, was at that time 3,000 miles away. I understand that he has not had the very longest notice of this Debate. I am sorry for that, because I hoped we might have had the opportunity of a really authoritative and final statement. I recognise that if we do not get it, it will not be the fault of my right hon. Friend and that we must look elsewhere with any blame there may be. We are bound to take the earliest opportunity of raising the matter, because the position is really bad.
The question of my hon. Friend related to an advertisement appearing in a great many national newspapers, on the authority of the Polish Government in this country. It was a calling-up notice, not addressed to any individual by name or identifying anyone. It was on the principle of what is now illegal with us, that of a general warrant, a general calling-up. I have no comment to make on that point,

because I have no doubt that it is in accordance with Polish law. After calling upon all Polish citizens between certain ages in this country to report for duty at a certain place by a certain date, it concluded by saying that those who did not do so—I have not the actual advertisement here, but I am sure I am getting the gist of it right—would be deserters under Polish military law, would be regarded as evading military service, and would therefore incur the appropriate penalties under Polish law for having done so. Nowhere in the advertisement was there any reference to the Act giving the Polish Government the right to call up their citizens in this country, nor to the fact that those persons were not obliged to obey the notice at all. Those persons may, if they choose, and it is entirely at their own discretion, join our Forces instead. The advertisement did not refer to that at all.
I would now like to clear up one or two misconceptions. It is a mistake for anyone to suppose that the persons concerned are reluctant to fight. So far from that, they are anxious to fight. In a great many instances they have repeatedly applied to be enlisted in our Armed Forces, and, because we had an agreement with the Polish Government on the matter we rejected their services. Those who have looked at the very recent history of Poland and of Warsaw need be under no illusion about the heroic devotion which the people who belong to the class affected by our discussion are devoting to the Allied cause. The second thing I would say by way of preliminary is that it is sometimes supposed that those of us who raise questions of this kind in this House are animated by some kind of hostility to the Polish or other Governments established here. So far as I and others interested in this matter are concerned, we are inspired by no such feeling. I have the greatest respect for the work that has been done by the Polish Government in this country, and I would pay tribute to the very sincere efforts they have made, with a very large measure of success, to put right the unfortunate result of some recent pre-war Polish history.
The third thing I would like to do is to call attention to the kinds of person affected. Very many of them are people who have not been in Poland since they were a few months old, people who left the geographical expression "Poland"


before it became anything else, and at a time when there was no Polish citizenship and they were not Polish citizens. They may have lived here all their lives, and speak only our language. They regard themselves, and are everywhere regarded, as having the rights and the obligations of British citizens. It is utterly absurd to expect that people of that kind should ever elect to join or be forced into a foreign Army, speaking a foreign language, and should be deprived of the right to go with their friends, neighbours and relations into our own Forces. Another class of person is that of the political refugees. It is not for me to take sides in this matter, and it is not proper to say that they would necessarily have been political refugees from this Polish Government; but they left Poland as political refugees. They sought refuge and asylum here, as they were entitled to do under international law.

Mr. Stokes: Before the war.

Mr. Silverman: Yes, before the war. We gave the protection that this country is always proud to give to political refugees. To hand those people over, against their will, to the power of the Polish authorities would be an iniquitous thing to do, however well-intentioned the present Polish Government may be, and I think are. Some of those people have made the most heroic efforts to get into our Armed Forces. I do not want to bore the House or to talk too long, but I have scores of letters from people who ran the greatest possible risks, which they could have avoided, rejecting visas to the United States of America, when that country was still neutral, in order that they should come here. Visas were obtained for them by our Ambassador in order that they should come and join our own, but they were rejected when they applied to join our Armed Forces and are now compelled by this notice to join the Polish Forces. Everybody knew of this problem a long time ago, and a great many people—I was one—sought a way out. Sought some understanding, some agreement under which the Polish Government would be accorded the fullest rights for their own nationals without allowing the exercise of these rights to produce injustices which everybody would deplore. A way out was found. An agreement was freely made, after long and

patient negotiations, and a Bill was introduced in this House and became law to give effect to an agreement which had been freely reached in negotiations between our Government and these other Governments. Without making too long a story about it, the agreement was that these Governments should have what they did not have under international law, the right in our territory to call up for military service their own nationals, but that the persons concerned should have free and unfettered choice, not as to whether they should join armed forces or not, but as to whether they should join our Armed Forces or their Armed Forces. That was a very successful agreement to have reached. It was very fair. It avoided, any anomaly and at the same time gave the Governments concerned the full measure of the rights they claimed.
This advertisement is a breach of that agreement. If you have reached an agreement that a man should have a free, unfettered choice to join the British Army or the Polish Army, it is a breach of that agreement to say that you reserve the right to shoot him as a traitor because he exercises the option you have given him. In fact, that is what the advertisement does.

Mr. Ralph Etherton: Would the hon. Member say where in the advertisement that is set out?

Mr. Silverman: I have not the advertisement in front of me. I think I can still obtain a copy and will let the hon. Member see it.

Mr. Etherton: I have seen it and studied it.

Mr. Silverman: If the hon. Member has seen it and studied it, he will have seen that part which says that anyone who does not obey the calling-up notice will be deemed to be evading military service, and that penalties will be inflicted against him in accordance with Polish law. If one evades military service, one can do it as an absentee or a deserter. I should be very surprised to hear that under Polish military law deserters are not shot. If you say that a man who does not obey a calling-up notice will be deemed to be evading military service, you imply that he may be deemed to be a deserter. If you say you will exercise against him the penalties to which deserters are liable, you


are saying that in certain circumstances you will shoot him if he exercises the right given to him by the British Parliament. The hon. Member may not agree, but if he thinks it over he will see that it is an answer. It may be said, "This is a purely academic point. What does it matter if the Polish Government say to people in this country that if they do not do certain things they reserve the right to inflict certain penalties upon them?" It will be said that the Act gives them no power to inflict penalties here unless they actually get hold of them, which they need not do. But I do not think it is entirely academic. Even if it were, there would be no reason why it should not be cleared up.
I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman two plain questions. I want to know whether there is any agreement, written or otherwise, secret or open, between the British Government and the Polish Government that persons who exercise the option we have given them to join our Forces instead of the Polish Forces will never be naturalised and will be deported after the war. Is there any such understanding in any form between the British Government and the Polish Government? The second question I. want to ask is that if persons relying upon an Act of Parliament which we have passed in agreement with the Governments concerned exercise their choice to join the British Forces, will the British Government extend to them, both now and hereafter, every possible protection against any persons who seek to impose upon them any penalty for freely exercising the choice we freely gave them? I think these people are entitled to know what their position is, but if they have only the advertisement to which my hon. Friend called attention, they will not know what their position is, or may be misled into thinking that their position is not that which in fact it is. I ask him to clear up the position for once and for all.
I have one other thing to say. I have already said I have the highest possible respect for the efforts which the Polish Government have made to heal old sores. I think they are succeeding to a very great, and, indeed, to an unexpected degree. Will they not continue it? Is it necessary to take steps such as this advertisement, which can only have the effect of reopening all the old suspicions? Would it not be wiser for everyone concerned

that these men should be told not only by our Government but by the Polish Government and everyone else interested, "Please yourself. So long as you do your share with the rest of us in defeating the common foe, do it in any armed force you like. No one wishes to exercise any pressure on you at all. Use your own discretion. Join where you will, fight with such immediate comrades as you prefer. No one will ever hold it against you." I believe that if they had the vision and the generosity, as I hope they may have, to do that, a great many people who would otherwise have opted for our Forces would join theirs.

Mr. A. Edwards: This matter was raised when I put a Question to the Foreign Secretary about a constituent of mine who is nominally a Polish subject—only nominally. I had correspondence with the War Office, who made it perfectly clear that the man had a right to choose whether he would join the Polish or the British Forces. He volunteered to join the British Forces. He sent me within a few days of 28th May this advertisement, saying that it was intended to convey to all Polish subjects that they must join the Polish Forces by the 28th or be subject to these dire penalties which the hon. Member opposite may think are not serious. Would it not be better, if there is a little doubt, that we should in this House put it beyond all possible doubt? There are people here who do live in terror of being handed back to certain people. They may be wrong, but it is not for us to judge. This man said he would not join up, that he would take whatever consequences that were coming but would not place himself in the hands of these people.
The Foreign Secretary had the duty to see that the whole country knew there was this option. He did not do that. It is a strange coincidence that, as it was a matter which, when it was raised in the House, aroused a considerable amount of interest and in 99 cases out of a 100 would have been reported, there was a news item prepared for the B.B.C. six o'clock bulletin and for some reason it was withheld. It is strange that not one newspaper in the country, I think, mentioned it. This was a great injustice, a position which was causing those concerned to be in a state of great anxiety. Somebody, somehow, took action to prevent


this information, which the Foreign Secretary gave quite willingly, getting to the people concerned. I think that is a great injustice, though I am sure, if it was not done deliberately, the House' will agree that it is a very strange coincidence that an item of so great importance to so many people should have been allowed to be censored.

Mr. Stokes: My hon. Friend says he is sure that this action was not taken deliberately. How does he suggest it was suppressed if not deliberately?

Mr. Edwards: It so happens that there is a certain amount of time for the news bulletins [Interruption]. The newspapers I cannot explain, but in a quarter of an hour news bulletin some things have to be dropped. I listened most carefully. Many things could have been dropped. This item was of importance to these people. It was withheld. I think the Foreign Secretary can still put it right. I asked him in a Question yesterday whether he would not do it. He did not seem disposed to move. I think he should. I think he owes something to these people. If he wants the House and the country to know that there is no backstairs understanding, he should do so by asking the Polish Government to give a period of time to those people, who, through misunderstanding, joined other Forces, in which they had the right, to join the British Forces. It is not a question of dodging service at all. The Foreign Secretary seems to be influenced by a very strong and understandable desire to prevent any misunderstanding with the other authorities in this country. Believe me, this superficial sweetness means a lot of bitterness to many families. He has a duty, having allowed the opportunity to pass when there was time to publish the fact that they had the option of joining the British Armed Forces, to ask the Polish authorities to agree with him that they will extend to the people who claim to have enlisted with the Polish Forces through a misunderstanding a period of time in which they can freely transfer to the British Forces.

Mr. Ralph Etherton: The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) indicated that he did not desire to make an attack on the Polish Government, but, however one may

approach this matter, it is quite obvious that that is in fact what he and the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Mr. A. Edwards) were doing.

Mr. Silverman: The hon. Member really must not say that. I am sure he would not wish to misinterpret anybody. I was not attacking the Polish Government. On the contrary, I said twice in my speech that I had the highest admiration for the efforts that they had made in this matter. But I think they have made a mistake in publishing this advertisement to restrain their nationals from making the very choice that we gave them and that they are exercising. It is in the Polish Government's interests that the matter should be put right.

Mr. A. Edwards: I hope the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Etherton) will withdraw that statement. It is the first time that I have ever in any Debate spoken against the Polish authorities. I have the greatest regard for them and for what they have done in this war. I hope the hon. Member will not prejudice the question in that way.

Mr. Etherton: Of course, I fully accept what the hon. Members opposite say; but that is the impression they gave me. I am bound to say that such speeches are most unhelpful to the good relationship which exists now between His Majesty's Government and the Polish Government and their nationals, who are making such an enormous and helpful effort in the Allied cause. I hope that His Majesty's Government will continue to encourage the nationals of all our Allies to serve in the forces of their own countries. That is, in fact, what this notice issued by the Polish Government endeavoured to effect. It was suggested by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne that there was something about the notice which was illegal because in some way it did not set out the Act or the legislative sanction under which the notice was made. He may or may not have intended to give that impression——

Mr. Silverman: The hon. Member, I am sure, wants to be helpful. Scoring debating points does not help anybody. What I said was that the Act was not only an Act of Parliament but the result of international agreement. The Polish Government were a party to the agreement. The Act represented a bargain that


they, had made, and the notice which they issued, although it might be legal under Polish law, was inconsistent with the contract to which they had agreed. It is a perfectly fair point to make, and an incontrovertible one.

Mr. Etherton: I had no desire to make a purely debating point. Had the hon. Member allowed me to ask a question during his speech, instead of refusing to give way, he would have had an opportunity of clarifying the matter, as he has now done. But he made the point—and I think it was a debating point—that the notice which was issued was illegal because it did not state the Act or the legislative sanction under which it was issued. I am glad that he is making it clear that he makes no allegation of that kind. The notice is a perfectly proper notice, and in accordance with the laws of Poland. He suggested that there was some injustice because there had been some breach of an agreement. I fail to see how there can be any injustice in a Government, operating under considerable difficulties, endeavouring to call up for national service those of their citizens who should properly be serving, in accordance with the laws of the, country. To suggest that there is any breach of an agreement in endeavouring to do that, is most unhelpful to the relations of our countries. I hope that His Majesty's Government will continue in the attitude which they have taken in this matter, in their support of the Polish Government's endeavour to call up their citizens for service with their own armies, and that they will encourage the citizens, not only of Poland but of other countries too, to serve with their own national forces.

Mr. A. Edwards: The hon. Member asks the Government to continue in the attitude they have adopted. The attitude which the Government have adopted is that these men have the option. What they have done is not to let them know that they have that option.

Mr. Etherton: I do not quite understand the point the hon. Member is making. I know the agreement which he mentions, but—I hope the Under-Secretary may make this matter clear—as have always understood, it is the endeavour of His Majesty's Government to encourage the citizens of all our Allies to serve with their own Forces.

Mr. Edwards: No.

Mr. Etherton: I hope that my right hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong, or clarify the matter.

Mr. Lawson: I was present during the discussion of the Bill which my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) has so fairly described. If the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Etherton) had been present and had understood, not only the Act but something of the spirit which was abroad at that time, he would feel that he is not expressing either the temper of the Act or the temper of those discussions. I thought that certain questions which my hon. Friend put needed answering. It is unnecessary to put our hands on our hearts and to say how we admire the Polish people and the Polish Government. As a very great admirer of the way that they stood up to the Nazis and received the first shock, I want to reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend. I have been a bit puzzled about this matter myself. I have been puzzled to know why this position arises in respect of the Polish Government and not, as far as I know, in respect of any of the other Governments in this country. I suppose there may be cases of nationals of those other countries exercising their right to apply for entry to the British Forces. I should like to know whether that is so or whether in every case they join their own Forces. If they apply to enter the British Forces they must be accepted, because there is not the same trouble with those Governments as there is with the Polish Government.
I do not know anything about the difficulties that have arisen. All I know is that from time to time, from various angles, there is some difficulty between Polish nationals and the Polish Government. That is due to their own national development and to differences that are probably quite honestly held. The same difficulty does not seem to arise with the nationals of the other Governments domiciled here. Is it a fact that if a Polish citizen wants to join the British Forces he is refused? If so, on what grounds? He could be refused, of course, on medical grounds, like any citizen of this country, but we have had abundant examples to show that very few citizens of this country are refused on those grounds. It seems to me that there is some case for the Government to answer. I beg the Govern-


meat—outside of this House, I should beg the Polish Government—to understand that there is no ill-feeling on this matter, and that those who are very great admirers of the Polish cause would like to see the spirit of the Act, which thought was a very wise one, and which was very fully discussed in this House, shown by the Governments domiciled in this country.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs(Mr. Richard Law): I do not think that anyone could complain of the very moderate tone which has animated this Debate. I was particularly glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) made it quite clear that he had no animus against the Polish Government, and that he was making no general attack upon that Government. My hon. Friend was good enough to say that he did not expect from me a final and authoritative statement on the question, in view of the fact that I was some 3,000 miles away when he raised the matter some weeks ago, and in view of the fact that I had very short notice that it was going to be raised to-day—in fact, it was less than half-an-hour before he got to his feet that I knew that it was to be raised, although that was no fault of his. My hon. Friend is both right and wrong in his expectation. I certainly would not expect that any statement I might make on this matter would be final. I do not think that any statement that I or anybody else could make could be regarded as in any sense final so far as my hon. Friend is concerned. But I hope that, in spite of the fact that I have not all the details of this complicated question at my fingertips, I may be able to make an authoritative statement.
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne and other hon. Members who have supported him have not given a perfectly accurate and fair picture of the position under the Act. There was a great deal in what my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Etherton) said. He rather implied that my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne, when he was describing the position as being that the Polish nationals had an absolutely free and unfettered choice as a result of a bargain made between the Polish Government and His

Majesty's Government, and that the Polish Government by issuing this advertisement have broken the spirit of that bargain and that agreement—my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford rather implied that that was not quite what the position in fact was. I believe that my hon. Friend was right in that. It was not a question that this was an agreement and that the Polish Government had broken the spirit of that agreement. That really was not the question at all, and I would ask my hon. Friend and other hon. Members to consider just what this Allied Powers (War Service) Act did in fact do. At the time I think it was fairly well known that some of the Allied Governments would have been very willing that they should have powers in this country not only to call up their nationals but to enforce the call up of their nationals. His Majesty's Government for one reason and another did not see their way clear to giving that power but what they did do under the Allied Powers (War Service) Act was to recognise their power to call up their nationals.

Mr. Silverman: Is it not the case that each of the Governments concerned agreed to accept that proposal and not to ask for more, and was there not in some cases a hold-up of the application of the Act to certain countries because of negotiations about it? The point I am making is that this is what the Act does. It is what the British Government were prepared to do, but the British Government did not introduce the Bill or ask the House to do it until they had satisfied themselves that the Governments concerned were prepared to accept it as a reasonable compromise between what the British Government wanted to do and what they wanted to do.

Mr. Law: Yes, Sir. When we introduced the Bill in this House we certainly hoped that the Allied Governments would accept it as a reasonable compromise, and in fact it was so accepted. What I am trying to explain to the House now is just what this Act does. It recognises that Allied Governments in this country have the power to call up their nationals, and that was done in this advertisement. That was fully within the powers which Allied Governments have in this country under that Act. What it did not do was to give them power to enforce in this country their call-up. What it did beside that was


to give us power to call up nationals of Allied Governments who had not accepted their obligations to their own Government. When my hon. Friend said that it gave Allied nationals a perfectly free and unfettered option, and that no argument or anything else was to be used in favour of their exercising that option one way or the other, I think he was very much over-stating the case and that the Act is just as I have stated it. It does recognise that Allied Governments have the power to call up——

Mr. A. Edwards: rose—

Mr. Law: This is rather a complicated thing, and it would be easier if I were allowed to proceed. It does recognise the Allied Governments' power to call up their own nationals. The complaint, I gather, of my hon. Friend is against this——

Mr. Kirby: I think the right hon. Gentleman will find in the OFFICIAL REPORT that I put it specifically to the Foreign Secretary whether these people had an unfettered option and he said that they had.

Mr. Law: They have obviously in the procedure I have described, in effect, an option which is completely unfettered. Nobody can compel them, here and now, to take this course rather than the other; but that does not mean that any Allied Government— the Polish Government or any other— is not permitted to issue an advertisement calling them up, or is not permitted to explain to them that, if, in fact, they refuse to accept the calling up notices, they will be liable to the penalties under the law of their own country when they get back to that country. There is nothing in the Act which would prevent any Allied Government from doing that.

Mr. Martin: My hon. Friend the Member for East Middlesbrough (Mr. A. Edwards) said he asked the Foreign Secretary whether these people had a free and unfettered choice. It would make it clear to the House if the right hon. Gentleman would say whether, in making his reply to the question, the Foreign Secretary implied that the Allied Governments concerned, including the Polish Government, were parties to the fact that their nationals should have free and unfettered choice. Would he make it clear that not only did the Foreign Secretary consider that Polish nationals

living in this country could exercise that choice but state whether in fact that choice is given by the Polish Government?

Mr. Law: I am at a little disadvantage in answering my hon. Friend's questions because I did not hear the reply my right hon. Friend gave; but it is true that, under the Act, foreign nationals have, in fact, a free and unfettered choice. It is equally true that I have a free and unfettered choice after this Debate is over, to go back to the Foreign Office, or to go into the smoking room and have a cup of tea. That is the fact, and if my hon. Friend comes up to me and tries to persuade me to go into the smoking room and have a cup of tea with him, he is not interfering with my choice. He is merely arguing. In the same way there is nothing in this advertisement which interferes with the freedom of a Polish subject in this country to refuse the call-up notice which the Polish Government have made.

Mr. Silverman: Will not the right hon. Gentleman give way? This is very important and ought to be cleared up here.

Mr. Speaker: I would remind the hon. Member that we are not on a Commitree stage but on the Adjournment and only one speech is allowed.

Mr. A. Edwards: The right hon. Gentle-
man has in the last few minutes made two completely contradictory statements. Are we not entitled to have the matter made clear beyond doubt?

Mr. Speaker: That does not fall within the procedure on the Adjournment; cross-examination cannot take place as it does on a Committee stage.

Mr. Silverman: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. No one wants to cross-examine anybody, but this is really a very important matter, and if the Minister is prepared to give way, in order that we may clear up a palpable ambiguity, would it not be in Order?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, but in this case the Minister is not prepared to give way.

Mr. A. Edwards: I accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, that we must not cross-examine, but the right hon. Gentleman made two contradictory statements.

Mr. Speaker: If the Minister does not give way, the hon. Member is not entitled to intervene.

Major Petherick (Penryn and Falmouth): Is it not possible for any ingenious character who shares the views of the hon. Member to reply?

Mr. Silverman: Will the Minister give way to enable me to ask a question?

Mr. Law: No, Sir.

Mr. Silverman: If the right lion. Gentleman wants to leave it obscure, that is the way to do it.

Mr. Law: Much the best way of clearing up these ambiguities, if they exist, would for me to develop the argument which, so far, I have had very little chance of doing. I was trying to tell the House what in fact this calling-up notice says, which is a source of so much offence to hon. Members. It gives the people who come under the call-up the dates on which they have to register and so on, and says that persons who do not appear before the Consular Recruiting Commission by the stipulated time shall be prosecuted for avoiding military service.

Mr. Silverman: That is not true.

Mr. Law: It says that the provisions of Polish law shall be applied -to such persons. There is nothing in that statement which contradicts the Act of Parliament. The Act implies that the Poles have no power to enforce the call-up in this country. The Act does not say that the Poles have no power to enforce their own law in their own country. [Interruption.] There is no conceivable reason why any British Act of Parliament should say such a thing as that. We talk of the Sovereignty of Parliament and the Sovereignty of Parliament is a very real thing, but it means that Parliament is sovereign in this country. It does not mean that Parliament is sovereign in Poland, or the Soviet Union, or the United States of America or any other country, and it cannot possibly mean that.

Mr. A. Edwards: You have given them sovereign power in this country.

Mr. Law: The hon. Members says that we are giving them sovereign power in this country.

Mr. Edwards: You are, and allowing these people to be dragged into the Forces.

Mr. Law: We have made it clear by the Act that they have no power whatever to enforce the call-up in this country.

Mr. Silverman: No, you have not. That is not in the Act.

Mr. Law: What is also clear under the Act is that we have no power to alter Polish law in Poland. That is a perfectly reasonable state of affairs. Many countries have conscription laws and many countries call up their nationals who are living in foreign countries. The French had a conscription law. The French used to call up Frenchmen living here. If they did not obey the call-up there was nothing that could be done when they were living in this country, but when they went back to their own country they came under the appropriate penalties.

Mr. Silverman: The difference is this, that they had not to serve in our Army.

Mr. Law: That is the position of a foreign subject in this country, and I now ask the House to consider the position of British subjects in foreign countries. There is, for example, their position in Egypt. Some months ago we passed a Bill through this House which gave us powers to call-up British subjects in Egypt, and if British subjects in Egypt ignore our calling-up notices we have further powers to enforce their call-up in Egypt. In fact we exercise there greater powers than are given to Allied Governments under this Act. When my hon. Friend seriously proposes that it is wrong for a sovereign Government to announce in this country that they intend to administer their own laws in their own country, I think he is over-stating his case very much. It would be a monstrous thing for this House or the Government to attempt to dictate to a foreign Government in this way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne asked me two specific questions. He asked whether there was any agreement, secret or open, written or verbal, between the British and the Polish Governments that men who paid no attention to the calling-up notice of the Polish Government and instead were called up by the British Government under the National Service Acts would be deported after the war? I can assure the House that there is no agreement, written or


spoken, implied or explicit, and no shadow of any such agreement. There is no agreement between the two Governments on that subject. The second question was whether the British Government would give Polish or other nationals the fullest protection against any penalties that might be levelled against people who ignored their call-up when they returned to their own countries. It is quite clear that it is impossible for His Majesty's Government to give protection in a foreign country to a citizen and a national of that country.
I have tried to explain the legal position under this Act, but quite apart from the legal position I cannot help feeling that some of my hon. Friends are allowing themselves to get unduly excited by it. To what kind of men do cases of this kind apply? My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne said it was utterly absurd to expect that people of that kind, perhaps people who had never lived in Poland, who did not speak the Polish language, who claimed that they owed no allegiance to Poland, should be compelled to serve in the Polish Army. In fact, they are not so compelled. But surely it would equally be utterly absurd to suppose that people of that kind, people who do not speak the Polish language, who never lived in Poland, who feel that they owe no allegiance to Poland, should want to go back to Poland when the war is over. If they do want to go back, if they want to get the advantages of Polish citizenship in times of peace, is there any reason why we should help them to get those particular advantages, when they have refused—for perfectly good reasons no doubt—to accept the obligations of Polish citizenship in time of war? I do not really think that is a case that, in equity, any reasonable man could support. I would assure the House once again that there is no conflict between this advertisement and the Act of Parliament under which the Polish Government is operating. There is no conflict with the provisions of the Act and certainly no conflict which contradicts the spirit of any agreement that was come to. The fact is that the Polish Government, or any other Government, has the power to call up its nationals, but it has not the power to enforce that call-up in this country. That is the

position and nothing in that advertisement alters the fact, or, it seems to me, attempts to alter it.

Mr. Lawson: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he would look into this matter again? The House did not understand at the time the matter was discussed that if a national of another country exercised his option to join our Forces, the country of which he was a national would have the power to use the full power of the law against him because he exercised that option.

Mr. Law: If the House did not understand that, I am very sorry, but I am surprised if the House did not understand it, because that is the normal procedure under Conscription Acts at any time and in any country.

Mr.Stokes: I do not want to keep the House for long, but still I do want to say that I am not satisfied with the reply of the right hon. Gentleman. I can sympathise with him that he had only half an hour's notice before dealing with what seems to me to be a very important point, but, as he says, that is not the fault of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman). Equally, it is not an answer to the question why the Foreign Secretary was not here to answer. I am taking an entirely contrary view from that of some hon. Members regarding the responsibility of this House. If the rights of individuals, whether nationals of this country or of any other country, who have sought refuge here are affected, we should protect them. The people I am concerned about are those who came to this country before the war in order to get away from the then existing Polish Government, and I do not think my hon. Friend has cleared up the matter at all satisfactorily. May I say, perfectly plainly, that any attack I make is not on the Polish Government but on the British Government? There can be no dubiety about that.
What I want to make plain is that some years ago a group of young Polish people complained that it looked as if they were going to be called up into the Polish Army in this country and they did not want to go. They were perfectly willing to join the British Army, but they quite frankly said they would not obey the call-up to the Polish Army. They


wanted an assurance that they would not be handed over to people who, in some cases, were the very people they had sought to avoid when they fled from Poland and came here. I sought the help of the Foreign Secretary and he gave me what I thought was an adequate assurance, but if the publication of this advertisement frightens some of these people into the Polish Armed Forces, I think the facts should be made widely known and they should be given the opportunity of transferring to the British Forces. By some extraordinary coincidence a veil of silence was drawn by the Ministry of Information and so the Press did not publish anything about the Foreign Secretary's statement in the House.

Mr. Law: It was pure coincidence.

Mr. Stokes: I hope we may have another pure coincidence and that my right hon. Friend will see to it that the Minister of Information issues one of his directives, this time in the right direction—some of us have seen many going in the wrong direction—so that people to whom we have given sanctuary shall be reassured that they have the right and the liberty to join our Forces and not the Polish Forces.

Major Petherick (Penryn and Falmouth): I do not want to do another injustice to the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes). I did some time ago, when I took him to task for, as I thought, casting aspersions on the victors of Alamein, and I take the opportunity now, after several months, of withdrawing that. But so far as I can understand, his thesis to-day it is that Poles in this country who are subject to this particular Order, should be allowed to dispute it, or have the option of joining the British Forces. It seems to me when you are fighting for freedom you should not be too particular in choosing the particular Army which you will join. We have heard of many cases of British subjects who could not get into the British Army for health reasons but who managed to serve in foreign units. Therefore, I think one should examine a little more closely the motives of some of those who are not willing to obey the orders of the Polish authorities.

Personally, I believe the arrangements made were perfectly reasonable and that Polish subjects in this country who are still Polish subjects and of military age should join the Polish Forces. I think we ought to be rather careful about allowing subjects of Allied nationality necessarily to join the British Forces because very often their motives are not quite as unmixed as might be suggested in certain quarters. Sometimes, I am given to understand, the motive is not that they may be allowed to carry on the battle against the Axis Powers but that they may be able to secure British nationality after the war. Therefore I think my right hon. Friend is quite right in his defence of the Government and I hope he will maintain his view.

Mr. Stokes: May I ask my hon. and gallant Friend whether he agrees that persons who have sought sanctuary in this country should be given the option of joining the Armed Forces of this country and not their own?

Mr. A. Edwards: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman not consider that if there is an option, it is right that people should know that there is an option?

Major Petherick: I am not sore there is an option, but I do not want to split hairs. They are still Polish subjects and, therefore, as in the case of French subjects, they should be subject to the call of the Polish Government, as Frenchmen are to the call of the French authorities.

Mr. Martin: I have no quarrel myself with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. I found it a reasonably clear exposition of the facts, but I would appeal to him whether he cannot think again about the second proposition of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman), that some kind of indemnity should be assured for these people who fight in our Army. It may be true, as the hon. and gallant Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Major Petherick) suggested, that some men have joined the British Army under the impression that they will gain British nationality after the war. If there are such people, and they gain British nationality, well and good. That disposes of the matter. But suppose others are not so fortunate and do not get British nationality. None the less, they


may have fought with distinction and valour in the cause of the Allied nations during the war, and it does seem, I think, rather a miscarriage of justice if they are to rest under the imputation of having evaded service because they did not join the Polish Army. I should have thought myself that, in present circumstances, the British Government might ask the Allied Governments to give

indemnity to those of their nationals who served in the British Army—at any rate to those who served abroad or in certain circumstances. I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman to give an answer this afternoon, but I do ask him to consider that.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.